1991 (1) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....made. Against the assessment so made, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appellate order was received by the petitioner on September 15, 1983. The appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been filed on or before November 14, 1983. The petitioner, however, despatched his appeal papers by post on November 11, 1983 which were received by the Tribunal on November 24, 1983. In other words, the appeal was barred by seven days. On April 24, 1986, the Tribunal issued a notice to the petitioner in forming him that his appeal was barred by time. Thereupon, the petitioner says, he filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal on June 18, 1986. This fact is of course di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner in support of his case, the Tribunal observed that there is nothing to show that they pertained to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner says that notwithstanding the said rejection order, he filed more than one application consecutively under section 254(2) of the Act reiterating his contentions all of which, he says, were rejected without posting them before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, the position is that, at no stage, has the petitioner filed an application under section 256(2) of the Act either against the order of the Tribunal dated May 28, 1987, or against the order of the Tribunal dated September 10, 1987, nor even against the subsequent orders dismissing the subsequent applications under section 254(2) of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s a case where the finding is patently erroneous, assuming that such a finding permits this court to act in such a situation. So far as the telegram is concerned, it is admitted that it did not reach the Tribunal on the date of hearing. Indeed, the Tribunal did not dispose of the appeal on the same day (May 19, 1987) but only on May 28, 1987. It is not the petitioner's case that the telegram reached the Tribunal on any day subsequent to May 19, 1987. He also made no attempt to appear before the Tribunal on or before May 28, 1987. So far as his application for adjournment is concerned, the Tribunal has said that it is not found in the records and that the material produced by the petitioner does not establish that any such application was fi....