2012 (11) TMI 1178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. By our order dated 9.10.2012, we had issued notice for final disposal. We have accordingly heard learned counsel for the parties for final hearing of the appeal. 2. For the purpose of this appeal, we formulate following substantial question of law:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, was right in law in re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dated 11.11.2011, we notice that the Tribunal was also influenced by the fact that the assessee could not file the affidavit of the person concerned and further that there was some discrepancy in the name whether he was known as Sanjeev or Sanjay. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay was wholly beyond the control of the assessee. He had instructed the concerned Chartered Accou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion of delay would not be granted as a matter of course. However, if some plausible explanation is rendered showing that the assessee though intended to pursue the appeal, was prevented from doing so for good and sufficient reasons, ordinarily the Courts prefer to decide the cause on merits rather than on technical questions. 7. Be that as it may,in the facts of the case, we are of the opinion .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X