9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strued liberally on facts without any hard and fast rule. No doubt, substantive rights of parties should not be ignored because of delay, but a distinction must be made between delay of few days and inordinate delay causing prejudice to the other side. No premium can be given for utter negligence of the appellant and giving incorrect explanation, in support of the prayer for condonation of delay, the explanation given by the appellant is not at all sufficient to condone the delay. Issue involved in this appeal has already been settled by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v/s. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT ] - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.64/2012 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2015 - P.K. JAISWAL AND ALOK VERMA, JJ. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vit of Shri Sanjay Rathi, Director of the appellant - Company. As per para 2 of the affidavit on 4.1.2012, when the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax served a judgment notice of appellant - company then only he came to know about the order. 4. The department in its reply has stated that the order dated 30.4.2011 was pronounced in the open court and at that time the chartered accountant of the appellant - company was present and the outcome of the same was known to the assessee as well as the counsel. After passing of the order a copy is being sent by the tribunal to the appellant as well as to the respondent by the Registry within a short period. As per service certificate of the ITAT the order of the tribunal was served upon the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been duly served to the appellant on 24.5.2011. 8. From the aforesaid, we are of the view that the cause shown by the appellant is not at all sufficient to condone the delay. Even there are material contradictions in both the affidavits, which have been filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. The Director of the appellant - company has not given true and correct facts about service of order dated 30.4.2011 and also about the fact that judgment was pronounced in the open court. No affidavit of chartered accountant has been filed that order has been served to him or judgment was not pronounced in the open court. 9. It is well settled that sufficient cause should be construed liberally on facts without any hard a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
