2016 (1) TMI 586

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified while observing that the Checking Officer was not empowered to go in the nature of transactions, whereas sec. 31(8) clearly provides that the Checking Officer was fully empowered to decide the nature of transactions at hand? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances the checking officer was justified in imposing the penalty on the difference of price as provided under proviso Ist to Section 31(8)? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in setting aside the well reasoned orders of both the authorities below? (d) Whether in the facts and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he orders of the authorities holding that no inquiries were made regarding the sale price and sent the case to the Assessing Authority. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Since the appeal is barred by time, an application bearing CM No. 23224-CII of 2015 has been filed under Section 5 of the 1963 Act for condonation of 1298 days' delay in filing the appeal. 4. We have heard learned State counsel. 5. Before proceeding with the merits of the controversy, it would be essential to examine whether the State has been able to give any satisfactory explanation for condonation of colossal delay of 1298 days in filing the present appeal. 6. Analyzing the legal position relating to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ollector (L.A.) v. Katiji N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil." 7. Adverting to the factual matrix in the present case, the plea for condoning the delay is that the impugned order was passed on 18.11.2011 and the certified copy thereof was received on 20.1.2012. The office of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana sought comments vide memo dated 11.1.2012 from the Assessing Authority which could not be sent and again the comments were sought vide memo dated 5.3.2012. Thereafter, on 19.3.2012, on the request of the Assessing Authority, the file was transferred to ward No.2 for comments. Since no comments were received, reminders were sent vide memos dated 17.4.2012 and 20.7.2012. Ultimately, the com....