9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Tribunal. The learned Counsel drew our attention to the Affidavit filed by Ms. Neha Kumari, daughter of the deceased Partner and submits that the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order was received in time on 19-4-2007 and on the same day, they approached the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider their appeal after condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him. He submits that there was a delay of one day beyond the normal period of three months in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and they were under the bona fide belief that their request for condonation of delay would be considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appellant is a daughter of the deceased Partner and the delay in filing the appeal b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the appeal was rejected for the reason that the appellants had not filed condonation of delay application for the delay of just one day in filing the appeal. Further, the appellants had represented before the Commissioner (Appeals) immediately on receipt of the Order-in-Appeal and had requested him for condonation of the delay and of just one day in filing the appeal which was for genuine reason viz., the death of the partner of the appellants. The bona fide belief of the appellants was also supported by the fact that though the application of the appellants for condonation of delay was duly acknowledged by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), there was no communication whatsoever to the appellants from the Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (S.C.)], the delay is to be condoned and the stay petition be taken up for the disposal. 6. On perusal of the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed before him only on the ground of time bar. On perusal of the records, we find that the appeal had been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 13-4-2007 and it is admitted fact that the Order-in-Original dated 9-1-2007 was received by the appellant on 12-1-12007. Thus, there was a delay of one day in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is also noticed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant without granting an opportunity for explaining the delay, if any, by the applicant before him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
