1990 (5) TMI 110 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed close to the deadline without sufficient care.
- Rejection of appeal by Collector (Appeals) as time-barred.
- Request for remand and condonation of delay.
- Disagreement among tribunal members on condonation of delay.
- Absence of appellants during hearings.
- Difference in opinion on condonation of delay between tribunal members.
- Consideration of postal delays and sufficiency of cause for condonation.
- Application for corrigendum and remand to Collector (Appeals) for decision on merits.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the appellants just before the deadline without taking adequate precautions, leading to its rejection by the Collector (Appeals) as time-barred. The appellants argued that the delay was due to postal transit time, but the Collector upheld the rejection citing the need for timely receipt regardless of posting date.

2. The appellants sought a remand to the Collector (Appeals) for condonation of delay, but the tribunal found their actions lacking diligence and denied the request. The tribunal emphasized the importance of timely and proactive submission of appeals to safeguard one's interests.

3. A member of the tribunal disagreed with the rejection, citing postal delays and the appellants' due diligence in posting the appeal in advance. Referring to past judgments, the member argued that the delay of one day should be condoned, and the appeal should be remanded for consideration on its merits.

4. Another member of the tribunal highlighted the difference in opinion among the members regarding the condonation of delay. The member emphasized the need to apply a common-sense approach in considering postal transit times and the sufficiency of cause for condonation.

5. During subsequent hearings, the appellants were absent, leading to a discussion on their representation and the arguments presented by the respondent. The tribunal considered the submissions and previous judgments in determining the sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay.

6. The tribunal, after careful consideration, decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The majority decision favored condonation, leading to the remand of the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for a decision on the merits.

7. A corrigendum was issued to rectify the previous order and remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for a final decision on the appeal's merits, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and principles of justice.