2009 (10) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....estion following substantial question of law were found: "I. Whether the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in adjudicating the appeal by treating it unadmitted holding that the explanation of the appellant for the delay is not sufficient, contrary to the settled principle of law that the appellant should not suffered due to the default or negligence of the counsel as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq and another, appellants Vs. Munshilal and another respondents, 1981-(002)-SCC-0788-SC; 1981-(068)-AIR-1400-SC ? II. Whether the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in acting contrary to the settled principle when there was sufficient reasonable cause, supported by a duly sworn affidavit of defaulting Advocate, on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l appellate order was returned back and thereafter belated appeal in question has been filed before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow duly supported by an affidavit of concerned counsel who had lost the file and responsible for non filing of appeal and thereafter said appeal in question has been dismissed as time barred. At this juncture present Income Tax Appeal in question has been filed. With the consent of the parties present appeal in question is being taken up for final hearing and disposal. Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant contended with vehemence that for the fault of the counsel client should not be made to suffer and as sufficient cause was there liberal view ought to have been taken in the mat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....could find only the original appellate order on 04.05.2009 then thereafter appeal in question has been filed. Income Appellate Tribunal Lucknow Bench Lucknow on 25.06.2009 has proceeded to mention that explanation which has been furnished by assessee of the then counsel to whom papers were given, has not given plausible explanation to condone the in ordinate delay of 530 days. Further it was mentioned that assessee in the application nowhere stated that after handing over the requisite documents to the then counsel the assessee followed up and tried to ascertain whether the appeal was filed or not, in this background cause furnished by assessee has not been found to be sufficient and appeal in question has been dismissed being barred by tim....