9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal in this Court under Section 260A(1) of the Act. If the application filed by the Appellant was not taken up by the ITAT for some reason, the Appellant ought to have filed the present appeal within time and mentioned in the memorandum of appeal that the Appellant has also moved an application before the ITAT. In fact, there are numerous occasions when appeals are filed by the parties in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was a delay of 278 days in filing the present Appeal, since against the impugned order, the Petitioner had preferred M.A. No. 303/Del/2016 before Ld. ITAT, which was only decided by Ld. ITAT on 15.05.2017. The Appellant received the copy of the order in M.A. No. 303/Del/2016 only on 20.06.2017. Thereafter, the unclear annexures were also to be typed, which took time. This delay was unintentiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 254 of the Act. Invariably, in such event, the party mentions in the memorandum of appeal the fact of the pendency of such application before the ITAT. Therefore, this is neither a bona fide nor a valid justification for the inordinate delay of 278 days in filing the appeal. The Court is, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay. The application is dismissed. 4. Consequently, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
