TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (2) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dt.28th March, 1985, imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,000 under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Against the said penalty order appeal was filed by the assessee. It was noted by the learned AAC that penalty order in this case was served upon the assessee on30th March, 1985and thus appeal could be filed on or before30th April, 1985. The appeal was, however, filed only on9th Dec., 1985. According....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said to have made an effort to locate the papers. The learned advocate is said to have intimated the assessee about the penalty order only on3rd Dec., 1985. The advocate was out of station in 5th and6th Dec., 1985, on account of the marriage of his nephew. The delay, according to the assessee was caused on account of lapse of the learned advocate and his office. Thus the request for condonation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Syn) 23 (SC). According to the learned advocate the delay in the present case should have been condoned and the appeal thereafter on merit. 3. On behalf of the Revenue the learned Departmental Representative Shri R.S. Adhlakha supported the order under challenge and submitted further that there was no reasonable cause for the delay and that no interference was thus called for. 4. Rival submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of lapse of the learned advocate looking after the assessee's tax matters. From the ratios in the cases mentioned hereinabove it is seen as if the assessee could be considered to have a reasonable cause for delay which was caused on account of the conduct of the learned advocate. It is also seen from the perusal of the ratio that right of appeal was substantial one and should not be allowe....