9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal, Condonation of delay, Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 Analysis: The judgment revolves around an appeal challenging a penalty order imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The appellant filed the appeal against the penalty order after a significant delay of 7 months and 9 days. The delay was attributed to the appellant's counsel, who claimed to have misplaced the penalty order and failed to inform the appellant promptly. The appellant sought condonation of the delay, contending that the delay was due to the counsel's lapse. The learned AAC, while acknowledging the counsel's lapse, refused to condone the delay, citing its inordinate nature. However, the appellate tribunal disagreed with the AAC's reasoning, emphasizing that the right of appeal is substantial and should not be lost due to technicalities. The tribunal found that the delay was caused by the counsel's conduct and could result in a miscarriage of justice by forfeiting the appellant's valuable right of appeal. Consequently, the tribunal decided to condone the delay and remanded the matter back to the AAC for a fresh decision on merit. The appellant's authorized representative reiterated the submissions made before the first appellate authority and relied on legal precedents to support the condonation of the delay. The representative argued that the delay should be excused, and the appeal should be considered on its merits. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the order under challenge, contending that there was no reasonable cause for the delay and no interference was warranted. The tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the delay was solely due to the counsel's oversight in managing the tax matters. By analyzing the legal precedents cited, the tribunal concluded that the delay, caused by the counsel's conduct, warranted condonation to prevent a miscarriage of justice and uphold the appellant's right of appeal. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the appeal, condoned the delay, and remanded the matter to the AAC for a fresh decision on merit. In summary, the appellate tribunal's judgment focused on the condonation of a significant delay in filing an appeal against a penalty order under the IT Act, 1961. The tribunal emphasized the importance of upholding the appellant's right of appeal, despite the delay being attributed to the appellant's counsel. By considering the circumstances and legal principles, the tribunal decided to condone the delay, setting aside the previous decision, and remanding the matter for a fresh decision on merit by the lower authority.
|
