TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 482
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and there were sufficient grounds on record for permitting condonation of delay? b) Whether the Appellant is individually eligible for exemption under exemption notification dated 01.03.2005 which exempts taxable services of aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 8 lakhs in any financial year from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994? c) Whether the 'service of renting of immovable property' is a divisible service for the purpose of determining service tax liability of a group of individuals who have rented out property as the coowners of such property? d) Whether the Appellant is liable for nonpayment of service tax and consequent violations of Sections 70, 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994?" 2. That a lease deed was executed between the service providers [respective appellants herein] and HDFC Bank whereby the property owned by the service providers was leased to HDFC Bank. That a showcause notice was served upon the service providers by the office of Assistant Commissioner, DivisionIII, calling upon the service providers to show cause as to why service tax of Rs. 3,64,353/- for the period from 01.08.2007 to 30.09.2008 should not be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e delay. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that as such there was no other malafide intention on the part of the respective appellants in not preferring the appeals within the period of limitation. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in not properly appreciating the further affidavits filed by the appellants along with the affidavits of one Shri Rakesh Thakor and Shri Parvez Parwala explaining elaborately the reason for the delay. It is submitted that as such the respective appellants did hand over the papers to their Chartered Accountant to prefer the appeals. However, due to the negligence on the part of the office of the Chartered Accountant, the appeals were not preferred within the period of limitation and thereafter when on inquiry it was found that the said Chartered Accountant i.e. M/s. Divyesh H. Shah & Co. did not file the appeals, the appellants took back the papers / files and handed over the same to another Chartered Accountant who filed the appeals subsequently. It is submitted that therefore there was a negligence on the part of the office of the Chartered Accountant M/s. Divyesh H. Shah & Co. and f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tters had erred and subsequently, appellant took back the papers and handed the responsibility to another Chartered Accountant who has now filed the appeal. It is also the submission that a clerk working with the Chartered Accountant has filed an affidavit that there was a delay on his part. We find that such affidavit filed by the appellant as well as a clerk of the second Chartered Accountant appointed by the appellant have not given any proper reasoning except that their peon forgot to hand over appeals papers. The appellants also have not justified the delay in a manner to instill confidence and condone the delay. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellants had acted in due diligence in pursuing with their first Chartered Accountant and subsequently the second Chartered Accountant. It is also not forthcoming from the records as to when all the papers were collected back from the first Chartered Accountant and handed over to second Chartered Accountant. In view of the foregoing, since the affidavits of the appellants as well as the clerk of Chartered Account, peon of the Chartered Accountant do not instill any confidence, we dismiss the applications for condonatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequently, when the appellants filed the further affidavits, it was supported by the affidavits of Shri Rakesh Thakor and Shri Parvez Parwala with altogether a different ground/story. In the further affidavits explaining the delay, the appellant Ghanshyam Vaghela came out with a following case. "That my erstwhile consultant M/s. Divyesh H Shah & Co., Chartered Accountant, was out of town on an official tour when I had handed over the appeal papers to one of his staff members'. His peon had then handed over those papers to one of the staff members' Mr. Rakesh Thakor, employed with Mr. Ingit Modi, Chartered Accountant, who is a professional contact and with whom assistance in professional matters was sought by Mr. Divyesh Shah as they have workplace in the same office complex. However, due to sheer negligence and oversight, Rakesh Thakor forgot to handover the appeal papers to Mr. Parvez R. Parwala working with Mr. Ingit Modi and assisting him in tax & appeal matters." That along with the said additional affidavits, the appellants have produced the affidavit of one Shri Parvez Parwala working with altogether another Chartered Accountant i.e. Shri Ingit Modi, Chartered Accountant as....