9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case in deleting the addition of EMI Residual of Rs. 21,44,12,399/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO. 3. There is a delay of 2005 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue. The department has filed application for condonation of delay which is reproduced below: "2. In this regard it is submitted that that, CIT, Ahmedabad II, Ahmedabad vide letter dated 30/10/2012 has directed to file a request for condonation for delay before the Hon. ITAT as per section 253(5) as the appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) has not be filed within the stipulated date. The facts of the case is discussed hereunder: In this case for AY 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the communication was received from the CIT's office, the concerned Assessing Officers was being relived of this charge and new Assessing Officer was taking over the charge. During the period issue filing of appeal to ITAT in the above case might not been mentioned in the handing over note exchanged by the officers relieved and taking over the charge of Circle 4, Ahmedabad and accordingly the aspect of filing appeal to ITAT might have not been taken into account by the officer taking over the charge of Circle 4, Ahmedabad. 3. In view of above facts, it is submitted that department's appeal was not filed due to oversight innocuously by the concerned Assessing Officer taking over the charge during the period when the filing appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been mentioned in the handing over note exchanged by the officers relieved and taking over the charge of Circle 4, Ahmedabad, and accordingly the aspect of filing of the appeal to ITAT might not been taken into account by the officer taking over the charge of circle 4, Ahmedabad. No other reason has been stated on behalf of the Revenue. The reason advanced for the inordinate delay for over five years could not be said to be a sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, and in our view, it shall be a wrong precedent to encourage such casual attitude of the appellant, by admitting the appeal by condoning inordinate delay for no valid reason. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal by the Revenue in limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
