9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nths' late in filing of this appeal against the said order. This Bench of Tribunal had dismissed the application for condonation of delay through its order dt. 31st May, 2001. The appellant had moved miscellaneous application which was registered as MA No. 19/Ju/2001. This miscellaneous application of the appellant was decided through its order dt. 14th May, 2001. The Tribunal while deciding the above miscellaneous application could not consider the relevant portion of p. 1 which reads as under: "I was not conversant having lesser literacy, having no knowledge about income-tax as well as on account of the fact that I was having no advocate in order to get the legal opinion after completion of assessment". This Bench of Tribunal through ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the same. He, therefore, contended that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to file the appeal after the specified time as the assessee was not going to gain any advantage by doing so and, on the contrary, he was going to lose from non-filing of the appeal. The Authorised Representative had contended that the main ground for condonation of appeal was that the appellant was not conversant with law, having lesser literacy and having no knowledge of income-tax, and also on account of the fact that he was not having any advocate to get any legal opinion. The learned Authorised Representative had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay". In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court should adopt rational, commonsense and pragmatic approach, and reliance can also be placed on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1997) 118 ITR 326 (SC). In this case it was held that "there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement; there is no such maxim known to the law." 5. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case that the appellant was a class IV employee, he was not conversant with the income-tax law and he was not being assisted by a legal adviser, we are satisfied that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
