TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....questions of law : "i. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 211 days in filing the appeal ? and ii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the appellant had reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and therefore, ought to have directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits ?" 4. The assessee company is a joint venture company promoted by the Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT) - an under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....days. The Director and Chief Executive Officer (for brevity, the DCEO) of the assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. However, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal by order dated 19.12.2001 stating that it is not a fit case for condoning the inordinate delay of 231 days. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal, by the impugned order, confirmed the order passed by the CIT (A). Being aggrieved by the orders passed by both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal, the assessee is before us by way of this appeal. 7. We have perused the affidavit dated 19.12.2001 filed by the DCEO of the assessee before the CIT(A) wherein it has been stated that as soon as the assessment order was received, it was placed before the DCEO, who i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal, in the impugned order, agreed with the view expressed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that though the then DCEO had resigned the post, the company had been working during the relevant period, that the other Directors were available and that the delay was caused due to negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee. 10. Firstly, we wish to point out that the Revenue has not filed any counter affidavit disputing the correctness of the affidavit filed by the DECO in support of the delay condonation petition. Thus, the averments set out by the assessee in the affidavit dated 19.12.2001 remained uncontroverted. In other words, it was never disputed by the Revenue. The stand taken in the affidavit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Even in the decision in the case of Vedabai (a) Vijayanatabai Baburao Patel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no hard and fast rule, which can be laid down while considering an application for condonation of delay. It was further held that Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. The Tribunal, while concurring with the view taken by the CIT(A), held that the assessee and its Directors were guilty of negligence. However, we do not find any such gross negligence on the part of the appellant especially in the light of the reasons assigned for filing the appeal belatedly, which have not been controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the matter should not be shut down on technicalities and a l....