TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1624
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d March, 2018 of Mr. Dilawar Nensey, Director of the Applicant in support of the Notice of Motion states that, its Director became aware of the order dated 8th July, 2016 passed by the Tribunal only in December, 2017 when notices for prosecution were received by the Applicant-Company. It further states that the copy of the order dated 8th July, 2016 was, thereafter, traced in their records and it bears a hand written marking of '14th September, 2016'. Although, there is no signature or name of the recipient on the copy of the impugned order found in their records. The Affidavit also makes a grievance of the fact that the Chartered Accountant who was handling their appeal before the Tribunal, had not attended the hearing before the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Applicant that only in December, 2017, when the prosecution notices were served upon the Applicant that its Director realized that the order dated 8th July, 2016, was passed. On enquiry, they were able to locate the order and find that it was received on 14th September, 2016. 5. If one is to accept explanation for the delay, then it would follow that the orders which are passed in Appeal, must necessarily be served, on the Principal Officer of the Appellant before the period of limitation commences. Resultantly, the service on the Assessee-Company will not be sufficient service. The internal dynamics of the Applicant would not extend the time for filing of the Appeal. Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 itself, inter alia, provides....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncerned, delay of 515 days was condoned in view of fact which were peculiar to that case. The reasons for condoning of delay as set out in paragraph 9 thereof, reads as under: "9:(i) appellant's appeal raising the same question for the earlier assessment year has been admitted; (ii) the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, which has been followed by the Tribunal in the impugned order, has not been approved by the Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., v/s. Asst. CIT (2010) 231 CTR (Mad) 368; and (iii) the delay in filing the appeal has been caused on account of what appears to be negligence on the part of the staff of the appellant's consultant." The above circumstances do not exist in the prese....