9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld have embarrassed the Advocate concerned and amounted to casting aspersion on a Member of Bar. The fact that the application for condonation of delay was moved after receiving show cause notice from the Registry of the Tribunal gives credence to the appellant’s plea that it was under a bonafide impression that the appeal had been filed and it was only when the show cause notice was received that the appellant came to know that the counsel to whom documents were mailed had taken no steps to file the appeal. The aforesaid fact was suggestive of the bonafide on the part of the appellant in not filing the application for condonation of delay alongwith appeal. The only negligence on the part of the appellant society was that it failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, has been dismissed being barred by limitation. 5. Though, the appellant has formulated three substantial questions of law, but in our considered view, the only question which merits consideration is- whether the Tribunal was justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the grounds pleaded before it on behalf of the appellant? 6. The facts may be noticed very briefly. The appellant is a Society, duly registered under the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006. It has been formed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh with an object of assisting the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs of the Government of Himachal Pradesh in formulating and implementing policies, procedures and guidelin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quently on receipt of notice of demand from the Income Tax Department during the month of July 2017, it was realized that no appeal had been filed in the case. Thereafter new arrangement to file the appeal was made. The appeal was accordingly filed. The application was duly supported by an affidavit. 10. The Tribunal vide order under appeal viewed that from the contents of the application, it was evident that the appellant was negligent in filing the appeal. The reasons for delay are general in nature and vague. The particulars of the counsel to whom the documents were mailed, were not disclosed and the application for condonation of delay was moved only after the Registry issued the show cause notice as to why the appeal be not treated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which have been relied upon by the Tribunal also, it has been authoritatively ruled that Bureaucratic Methodology in making the decision is no longer acceptable as sufficient cause for condonation of delay, nonetheless it is equally true that when a counsel is engaged and the brief is entrusted to him, the litigant would legitimately expect such counsel to take timely steps. As noticed earlier, the only negligence on the part of the appellant society was that it failed to pursue the matter with the counsel to whom the documents were mailed. In the case of such type of negligence, equities can be well balanced by imposing costs on the party negligent. We are thus of the view that the Tribunal s endeavour ought to have been to decide the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
