9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not condoned. The judgments pressed into service by counsel for the respondent pertain to adjudication of an appeal on merits wherein, it was found, as a matter of fact, that consideration by the Committee of Commissioners was not in consonance with provisions of Section 35-E of the Act and therefore, dismissal of the appeal, by the Tribunal, was held to be valid and in accordance with law - The situation in the present appeal is entirely different as the question whether the appeal has been validly filed was not before the Tribunal - The controversy before the Tribunal was whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for delay – there was no option but to allow the appeal, set aside the order and restore the application for cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confined itself to sufficient cause and only after recording an opinion thereon, adjudicated the matter on merits. It is contended that as the application for condonation of delay has been rejected without considering facts set out in the application, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the Tribunal has not committed any error of law or of jurisdiction. The right of the revenue to file an application under Section 35-B(5) of the 1944 Act would depend upon legality of the reference made under Section 35-E of the 1944 Act. As the Tribunal has held that the reference is illegal, there was no question of condoning delay. In support of this argument, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondonation of delay was accepted as an appeal cannot be said to be properly constituted till delay is not condoned. The judgments pressed into service by counsel for the respondent pertain to adjudication of an appeal on merits wherein, it was found, as a matter of fact, that consideration by the Committee of Commissioners was not in consonance with provisions of Section 35-E of the Act and therefore, dismissal of the appeal, by the Tribunal, was held to be valid and in accordance with law. The situation in the present appeal is entirely different as the question whether the appeal has been validly filed was not before the Tribunal. The controversy before the Tribunal was whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause for delay. In this v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
