9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals against the orders of the AAC dated 15-10-1985. 2. Condonation of delay based on advice from counsel. 3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to admit appeals with sufficient cause for delay. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed late by 402 days against the orders of the AAC dated 15-10-1985. The assessees claimed that the delay was due to the belief that no further action was required after the AAC's order u/s. 35 on 31-12-1985. The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was insufficient as the assessees failed to challenge the original order within the statutory period. The Tribunal found the premises for the delay incongruous with the facts of the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeals as barred by limitation. 2. The assessees sought condonation of delay based on advice from their counsel that no appeals were necessary after the AAC's order u/s. 35. The counsel's advice was considered a mistake, and the assessees argued it constituted sufficient cause for the delay. However, the Tribunal found that the advice was not reasonable given the subsequent actions and the nature of the orders. The delay was deemed inordinate, and the appeals were rejected as the explanation did not meet the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. 3. The Tribunal considered the jurisdiction to admit appeals with sufficient cause for delay. Despite the assessees' arguments, the Tribunal found that the delay was not justified based on the factual position and important dates not presented. Following the guidelines set by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that the delay was not due to sufficient cause and dismissed the appeals as time-barred. The decision was based on the lack of reasonable grounds for the delay and the failure to meet the legal standards for condonation.
|
