9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... never informed the department about the change of address. Earlier also appellant was not serious about the show cause notice. There is no proper explanation in the present case, so as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the delay of about nine years cannot be condoned - the delay of nine years in the instant case is without proper explanation - application for condonation of delay dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exact date. After nine years, on request, another copy of the order was received and soon after receiving the certified copy of the order, the appeal was filed within the stipulated period of ninety days. Prior to it, he submits that it was the duty of the department to search the address of the assessee as the factory was closed. He admits that the appellant never informed the department abou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess with the department. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has admitted that they never informed the department about the change of address. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that to serve the notice, it was the duty of the Department to search new address. 5. It may be mentioned that a person cannot take advantage of his wrongs as per the maxim COMMODUM EX INJURIA SUA MEMO HABERE DEBET. Simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication for CoD is rejected by keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Leelawanti Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2012 SC 515; also in Oriental Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 312 ITR 193 (Bom.). Accordingly, CoD is rejected. Consequently, appeals are not maintainable. 8. In the result, application for condonation of delay as well as the appeals are dismissed. (Dictated and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
