2021 (5) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. There was a delay of 632 days in filing the appeal. The assessee stated in its petition that the tax matters were entrusted to the Authorized Representative Shri A.C. Gangaiah, CA who had expired on 06/10/2016 and the said Authorized Representative did not file the appeal and the assessee was under the impression that appeal was already filed. On verification of the fact from the office of Late Mr. Gangaiah it was ascertained that the appeal was not filed, hence, he has taken up the matter with another A.R. who has filed the appeal which caused the delay of 632 days and therefore requested to condone the delay. 3. We have heard both the parties and gone through the affidavit and condonation petition filed by the assessee. The assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the subject application(s) on 19.07.2008. Notably, the respondent(s) did not expressly refute the stand taken by the appellant (s) - that they had no knowledge about passing of order dated 29.12.2003 until June, 2008. Unless that fact was to be refuted, the question of disbelieving the stand taken by the appellant(s) on affidavit, cannot arise and for which reason, the High Court should have shown indulgence to the appellant(s) by condoning the delay in filing the concerned appeal(s). This aspect has been glossed over by the High Court. 5. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. We set aside the impugned order of the High Court and relegate the parties before the High Court, by allowing the civil application(s) filed by the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e also assured the court that the assessee would cooperate with the department for disposal of the appeal. 6. On the other hand the Ld. DR objected for remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and argued that sufficient opportunities were given by the Ld. CIT(A) during the appeal proceedings, hence, requested to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) 7. We, have considered submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. In the instant case no doubt, the Ld. CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities to the assessee and Ld. assessee did not respond to the notices given by the Ld. CIT(A), hence we do not appreciate the attitude of the assessee in not complying with the statutory notices. However, we, observ....