9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Refusal to condone delay in filing appeal under section 33(2A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
Summary: The High Court of Bombay considered a case where the Tribunal refused to condone a delay of 520 days in filing an appeal under section 33(2A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The delay occurred due to the mistaken filing of an application for rectification under section 35 of the Act. The advocate representing the assessee, who was also the assessee's natural father, had filed the appeal in the wrong forum. The Tribunal's decision to not condone the delay was challenged in this reference. The reasons for the delay were explained in the application for condonation. The advocate had mistakenly pursued rectification proceedings under section 35, which led to a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, refused to condone the delay, leading to the present reference before the High Court. The High Court analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case, emphasizing that not every mistake by a counsel warrants condonation of delay. It was noted that the advocate's relationship with the assessee, being the natural father, did not absolve the situation. The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision to highlight that genuine mistakes by counsel do not always justify condoning delays. In this case, considering the background and the mistaken pursuit of rectification proceedings, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to not condone the delay. In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision to refuse condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The Court held that the appeal was not prosecuted with due care and attention, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's plea. The costs of the reference were directed to be borne by the applicant.
|
