9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances of the case, it is seen that the explanation offered by the appellant for condoning the inordinate delay of 3 years, 4 months, 12 days is wholly unsatisfactory. 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 ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed on account of his impression that the penalty order being consequential in nature, a single appeal would suffice. 4. It is stated that when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 01.08.2011 the omission to file a separate appeal against the penalty order was noticed and it was accordingly that Ext.P4 appeal was filed, along with Ext.P5 application for condonation of delay of 3 years, 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished a satisfactory explanation in seeking condonation of the inordinate delay of above 3 years, 4 months and 12 days. The assessing authority imposed penalty by a separate oder and properly communicated the same to the appellant. Therefore, there is no basis for the contention of the appellant that they genuinely felt that penalty being consequential order, separate appeal need not be filed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion offered by the petitioner is the omission on the part of their counsel to file a separate appeal and on that basis, it is argued that a mistake committed by the counsel should not be a reason to make the client suffer. Although, it has been held by various courts that litigants shall not be made to suffer on account of the mistake committed by the counsel, it is the duty of the client to sat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
