9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (A)-I, Hyderabad dated 10th July, 2008 and it pertains to the assessment year 2005-06. There is a delay of 561 days in filing this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the CIT (A) for the assessment year under consideration was served on 17-7-2008 and the appeal is due to be filed on 15- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal. Since the assessee fails to do so, it is prayed that the delay of 561 days should not condoned in the instant case. On merit, he relied on the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have heard both the parties on the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. We find that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 561 days. It is true that the assessee is entitled to file an appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e must be sufficient cause. The same is missing in the present case. In the case of Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Limited vs. ACIT in ITA No.266/Bang/08 dated 23rd October, 2008, it was held that non-filing of appeal by the assessee before the end of the limitation period, created a vested right to the revenue. The department therefore had a legitimate right over the tax revenue accruin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing this appeal which, in our opinion, is unacceptable. We find that, in the present case, the delay is mainly due to the negligence on the part of the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and the circumstances of the case, we refuse to condone the delay in the instant case. Since the appeal remains un-admitted on the grounds of limitation, we are not inclined to go into the merits of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
