TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd I find that Commissioner (Appeals) being creature of law is bound by the machinery provisions contained in the statute and cannot exceed the jurisdiction contained in the statute. Thus, without going into merit of the case, in the light of the statutory provision as above the appeal is rejected on the ground of being time barred." 2.1 I have heard Shri Durgesh K. Maurya learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Abhishek Mukharjee learned Authorized Representative appearing for the revenue. 2.2 Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that:- ⮚ the demand relates to HUF of Shri Raj Kumar Rastogi whose PAN is ADTPR 3892B and the demand raised against PAN No. AYIPS2047P which do not belong to him either in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a further period of one month." In terms of the above, it is observed that the appeal was to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within two months of the date of the receipt of the Order-in-Original by the appellant. As per the proviso Commissioner (Appeals) has been granted the power to condone delay of one month in filing the appeal on sufficient cause being shown. In the present case appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeal) after the stipulated time from the date of receipt of Order-in-Original. Hence, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and has dismissed the same on this ground alone. 3.3 This issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed after 1998 and it was only opened for some short period. From the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the appellant has categorically accepted that on receipt of order the same was immediately handed over to the consultant for filing an appeal. If that is so, the plea that because of lack of experience in business there was delay does not stand to be reason. I.T.C.'s case (supra) was rendered taking note of the peculiar background facts of the case. In that case there was no law declared by this Court that even though the Statute prescribed a particular period of limitation, this Court can direct condonation. That would render a specific provision providing for limitation rather otiose. In any event, the causes shown fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision. 3.5 In case of Glaxo Smith ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(filed in support of the application for condonation of delay before the appellate authority), it is stated that the company became aware about the irregularities committed by its erring official (Mr. P. Sriram Murthy) in the month of July, 2018, which pre-supposes that the respondent must have become aware about the assessment order, at least in July, 2018. In the same affidavit, it is asserted that the respondent-company was not aware about the assessment order, as it was not brought to its notice by the employee concerned due to his negligence. The respondent in the writ petition has averred that the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that it had no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days, when in fact, the or....