1981 (5) TMI 49 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal delay justified due to incorrect service, not intentional, admitted for consideration

The tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal, caused by incorrect service to an unauthorized individual, was justified due to reasonable cause. ... - Issues:1. Admissibility of appeal delayed by 248 days due to service issues.2. Whether delay in filing appeal was due to reasonable and sufficient cause.3. Interpretation of authority of an individual to receive notices on behalf of the assessee.4. Consideration of circumstances leading to delay in filing the appeal.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeal was delayed by 248 days, and the issue was whether the delay was justifiable for admissibility. The delay was attributed to the incorrect service of the appellate order, which was served on an unauthorized employee of the assessee. The assessee contended that the delay was due to reasonable cause as the authorized person had passed away, and the order was served on an unauthorized individual. An affidavit was filed to support these claims.2. The contention was supported by citing legal precedents, including judgments from the Allahabad High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court, emphasizing the importance of authorized representation in receiving notices. The assessee argued that the delay was not intentional but a result of the lack of communication regarding the order. The counsel highlighted that efforts were made to obtain a duplicate copy of the order promptly after becoming aware of the situation.3. The revenue opposed the submissions, arguing that the service on the unauthorized individual should be considered valid as he had received a notice earlier. However, it was acknowledged that there was no substantial evidence to prove ongoing authorization for receiving notices on behalf of the assessee. The counsel for the assessee reiterated that the unauthorized individual was not an authorized agent and should not be deemed as one based on a single instance of notice acceptance.4. After considering the arguments from both sides, the tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable and sufficient cause. The tribunal referenced a similar case where service on an unauthorized individual was deemed immaterial, emphasizing the importance of valid representation. It was concluded that the delay, although significant, was not tainted by malice or recklessness. Therefore, the tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for consideration on its merits in accordance with the law.