1994 (7) TMI 334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ears 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. The appeals filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were rejected as time-barred. Since the Appellate Tribunal did not find reason to interfere with the common appellate order, these tax revision cases have been filed. 2.. We heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Karunakaran Nambiar, Special Government Pleader (Taxes), for the Revenue. 3.. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... categorically asserted that he was only an agriculturist not doing any business and that the brick manufacturing unit was run by his son Pappachan, who was also remitting the tax due. 4.. The assessing authority however completed the assessments as, according to him, enquiries revealed that the petitioner had carried on the brick manufacturing unit. 5.. The first appeals before the Appellate A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ore the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ought to be disposed of on merits instead of being scuttled on the ground of delay. The petitioner appears to be an illiterate person, claiming to be a mere agriculturist. He had clearly stated that the business was not his, but his son's, who was paying the tax therefor. Though the appeals were belated, the default of the representative appears to have con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X