1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appellant found negligent, restoration allowed upon Rs. 25,000 payment to PM Care Fund. Timely action stressed.</h1> The Tribunal found the appellant negligent in pursuing their appeal but allowed restoration upon payment of Rs. 25,000 to the Prime Minister Care Fund ... Condonation of Delay and Restoration of Appeal - appeal dismissed for non-prosecution - HELD THAT:- It is found that definitely appellant has been lethergic and negligent in pursuing their appeal. In the justice, the miscellaneous application is allowed and the appeal restored subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- in Prime Minister Care Fund. The cost will be deposited within 4 weeks from today and compliance file before the Deputy Registrar of this Tribunal. Subject to compliance, the appeal shall be restored to its original number. Issues: Condonation of Delay and Restoration of AppealCondonation of Delay:The appellant's appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to a delay in filing. The appellant claimed that their business closed in 2015, leading to difficulties in maintaining contact with their lawyer and following up on the appeal. They argued that the delay was due to financial challenges and not deliberate negligence. The appellant learned about the final order in 2022 when contacted by the Department for arrear dues. The appellant then took steps for Restoration of Appeal (ROA). The Department contended that the appellant was negligent in pursuing the appeal and had not maintained proper correspondence or address with the Department.Restoration of Appeal:After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found the appellant to be lethargic and negligent in pursuing their appeal. Despite this, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application and decided to restore the appeal upon payment of Rs. 25,000/- to the Prime Minister Care Fund within 4 weeks. Compliance was to be filed before the Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal. Upon compliance, the appeal would be restored to its original number. Both miscellaneous applications were allowed by the Tribunal.This judgment highlights the importance of diligently pursuing legal matters and maintaining proper communication with the relevant authorities. The Tribunal balanced the appellant's reasons for delay with the need for timely prosecution of appeals. The decision to restore the appeal upon payment to the Prime Minister Care Fund serves as a reminder of the consequences of procedural delays in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
