9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 1754 days in filing appeals against the order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur by which various appeals were disposed of. 3. The appellant in all these applications is HUF which is under the control of Court of Wards. The assessment proceedings were looked after by the Court of Wards right from the assessment proceedings till passing of the impugned order and the Court of Wards appointed its own counsel for the purpose of attending the proceedings before the authorities under the Income Tax Act. 4. The impugned orders were passed on 29.12.2003 against which the appellant has preferred appeals under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act accom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the publication of notice regarding the sale of the properties of the appellant in daily newspaper in June, 2008, the appellant took prompt steps to get all the documents necessary to challenge the orders before this Court and the appeals along with the application for condonation of delay were filed promptly. He, therefore, submitted that considering the facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the appeals is liable to be condoned. According to the learned counsel sufficient cause has to be construed liberally. In support of this submission, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others (AIR 1987 Supreme Court, 1353) . 8. Per c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period of delay and on account of inaction on the part of the appellant we find that these are not the fit cases in which inordinate delay of 1754 days in filing appeals deserves to be condoned. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bhattad that considering the facts and circumstances of the case the limitation should begin to run from the date of knowledge i.e. from June, 2008. 10. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in these applications. Accordingly, all the applications are dismissed. Income Tax Appeal St. Nos. 16191/2008, 16193/2008, 16195/08, 16197/08, 16199/08 16201/08 (Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) In view of the dismissal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
