9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The appeal by the department against the order of ld. CIT(A) allowing claim of depreciation. The issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to communication gap between department officers. Issue 1: Claim of Depreciation The department appealed against the order of ld. CIT(A) allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 10,48,794. The appeal was found to be barred by limitation by 8 years and 47 days. The department sought condonation of delay citing communication gap between officers as the reason for not filing the appeal in time. The delay was considered inordinate, and the department's argument for condonation was challenged by the assessee's counsel. The counsel highlighted previous instances where no appeal was filed despite directions from authorities, indicating a lack of valid reason for the delay. Various case laws were cited to support the argument against condonation of delay. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the communication gap within the department was not a valid ground for condonation of the significant delay. Issue 2: Condonation of Delay The department sought condonation of the significant delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to a communication gap between department officers. The department argued that there was a reasonable cause for the delay, while the assessee's counsel contended that the delay was inexcusable and should not be condoned. The Tribunal considered various legal precedents and held that the faulty internal working in the department could not be considered a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a plausible explanation for the delay and concluded that the department had not provided a valid reason for the 8 years and 47 days delay. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as barred by limitation.
|
