9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no longer alive. This was indeed unfair and the Tribunal appears to have been of view that he ought not to have blamed the consultant who passed away before the Tribunal heard the appeal. We agree with the above view of the Tribunal. In the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that interests of justice would be served if delay is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits by the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs as directed hereafter. This order is passed subject to the appellant paying costs of Rs.25,000/to the Victoria Memorial School for Blind at Mumbai within two weeks from today, the appeal shall be entertained by CIT(A) after the receipt issued by Victoria Memorial School for Blind is produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4) The relevant assessment year is 200708. The appellant had challenged the assessment order dated 21 December 2009 before the CIT(A). However, there was delay of 278 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).The appellant filed letter dated 7 July 2011 for condonation of delay. The CIT (Appeal) passed order dated 11 September 2012 rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed as time barred. 5) Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal by impugned order dated 17 May 2013 on the ground that the appellant had not given cogent reasons for condonation of delay and that the appellant has been negligent. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o substantial question of law arises. 7) It is necessary to note that Tribunal decides the appeal before it and further appeal is filed in this Court under Section260A of the Act. The non consideration of the delay in filing the appeal not being considered in right perspective would give rise to a substantial question of law. 8) In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant had filed his first letter dated 7 July 2012 for condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant's mother was not keeping good health for last many years and died at the age of 87 years. That the appellant was only person to look after his mother and after her death was in not a proper state of mind for long time resulting in delay in filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be served if delay is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits by the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs as directed hereafter. 10) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 15 May 2013 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.6488/Mum/2012 so also the order dated 11 September 2012 of the CIT(A) passed in assessee's appeal being appeal No. CIT(A)34/IT109/1011 are set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall proceed to hear the appeal on merits. This order is passed subject to the appellant paying costs of Rs.25,000/to the Victoria Memorial School for Blind at Mumbai within two weeks from today, the appeal shall be entertained by CIT(A) after the receipt issued by Victoria Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
