2019 (1) TMI 863

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elay is also common and the explanation rendered for the delay is also common. We have, therefore, perused the facts from Notion of Motion No. 1011 of 2018. 3. Applicant - assessee is challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 30.11.2016. The appeal is presented on or around 5.10.2018. There is, thus, delay of 507 days in filing the Tax Appeal. In order to explain such delay, the applicant has principally offered the following explanation: "6. I say that the impugned order has come to my knowledge on or about 30th May 2018 even though the Impugned Order dated 30.11.2016 was received by our office staff member on 17.1.2017 and an Appeal ought to have been filed within 120 days i.e by 17.5....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appeal. 5. Further explanation sought to be rendered is that the husband of one of the directors of the appellant - company was facing criminal proceedings pursuant to an FIR which was filed on 12.2.2017 by one of the family members. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the delay is thus, properly explained. Mere length of delay should not be a decisive factor. There was no intention on the part of the applicant to abandon the challenge. The delay was occasioned due to the reasons beyond the control of the applicant. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 to contend that in the matter of delay, the Court should adopt a liberal approach. 7. Hav....