9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6, an order passed by the second respondent rejecting an application made by them for condonation of delay of 3 years, 4 months and 12 days in filing the appeal. 2. The first respondent had passed orders of assessment and penalty against the petitioner. Although, both the orders were produced along with the appeal memorandum, the appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances, the writ petition has been filed. 5. Ext.P6 is the order impugned and insofar as it is relevant the order states thus: "The contention of the appellant is that the counsel of the appellant genuinely felt that penalty being a consequential order, separate appeal need not be filed. It was only when the appeal against the assessment was taken up for hearing on 01.08.2011. The appellant re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y reasons for the inordinate delay of 3 years, 4 months, 12 days. The application seeking condonation of delay has to necessarily fail and therefore, the same is dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed against penalty for the year 2005-2006 is also dismissed. Order accordingly." 6. Admittedly, the delay of 3 years, 4 months and 12 days is inordinate and unless it is satisfactorily explained, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such an affidavit is absent. Therefore, except the unsubstantiated claim of omission on the part of the counsel, there is no material whatsoever before this court to accept the case of the petitioner and disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the appellate authority. Therefore, I am not persuaded to take a view different from what is taken by the second respondent. Writ Petition is dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
