9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record, it is seen that the proprietor of the appellant, which is a proprietorship firm, was having medical problems for which he was receiving treatment and the same was brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals). Even though the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has mentioned about it in Para 4 (1) (ii) of her order, the same appear to have been completely disregarded and no finding whatsoeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of limitation on account of delay of 55 days in filing the appeal beyond the statutory period of 3 months, which was applicable at the relevant time. 2. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) suffers from certain mistakes as the date of receipt of order-in-original is wrongly mentioned at Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months. 4. Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue submits that they were a partnership firm when the correspondence about audit objection was going on but fairly agrees that when the show cause notice was issued, the firm was already a proprietorship firm. He reiterated the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and argued that the appellant has not satisfactorily explained the reasons for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was having medical problems for which he was receiving treatment and the same was brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals). Even though the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has mentioned about it in Para 4 (1) (ii) of her order, the same appear to have been completely disregarded and no finding whatsoever has been given on it while considering the application for condonation of delay. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
