9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Analysis: The appeal was filed with a delay of 35 days, and the appellants sought condonation, citing unawareness of the Tribunal's office relocation. The appellants provided evidence such as a covering letter, a bank draft dated 25-1-1983, and sworn affidavits to support their claim that the appeal was dispatched on time. The Departmental Representative opposed, arguing lack of concrete evidence of the appeal's posting on 25-1-1983. The Tribunal noted that the date of actual receipt, not posting, is crucial for appeal timelines. The absence of a postal receipt led to the rejection of the condonation application and dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence over oral submissions in tax law matters. In a separate judgment, one member disagreed with the rejection of the condonation application, highlighting the appellants' awareness of the limitation period and the steps taken on 25-1-1983, including preparing documents and authorizations. The member found the appellants diligent and believed that the circumstances, such as the office relocation, were beyond their control. The delay was ultimately condoned, emphasizing the appellants' proactive approach and the presumption of dispatch once entrusted to an authorized agent. In a third judgment, another member supported the condonation of the delay based on the detailed analysis presented by the dissenting member, emphasizing the importance of justice in such cases. The majority decision ultimately favored condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in filing the appeal was based on a thorough examination of the evidence presented and the circumstances surrounding the case, ultimately prioritizing the interests of justice in the matter.
|
