Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the delay of 2913 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned and the matter restored for disposal on merits.
Analysis: The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) had been filed with the consultant's address for service, but notices were issued to the assessee's old address. The assessee asserted that the address had changed and that he was deprived of effective participation in the appellate proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) had nevertheless decided the appeal on merits in the absence of representation. The Court found that although the delay before the Tribunal was substantial, refusal to condone it would leave the assessee without a remedy against an order already affirmed on merits, and the explanation was sufficient in the circumstances.
Conclusion: The delay of 2913 days was condoned, the Tribunal appeal was restored, and the Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal on merits, subject to deposit of costs.
Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained restoration of the appeal before the Tribunal, while the matter was sent back for adjudication on merits upon compliance with the cost condition.
Ratio Decidendi: A long delay in filing a tax appeal may be condoned where denial of condonation would defeat the remedy and the surrounding facts disclose a sufficient explanation for the delay and lack of effective opportunity in the earlier proceedings.