9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax dues was received by obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order and preferring the appeal without much delay on 24.09.2020 within the Corona period. We have also taken note of the substantial question of law framed by the appellant for admission of the appeal. Taking a broader view of the matter, we are inclined to condone the delay in the interest of justice, however subject to deposit of cost of Rs.10,000/- at JHALSA within a period of 3 weeks and receipt thereof be also filed within this period. Rectification of mistake - period of limitation - Appeal to be heard on the following substantial questions of law: I. Whether under the facts and circumstances and in law the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the M.A. file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of service of order on the said advocate of the appellant was applied for on 03.07.2020. The certified copies were supplied on 07.07.2020 and without any waste of time after preparation of memo of appeal and due consultation and vetting, memo of appeal was filed on 24.09.2020. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has labored to impress that the learned advocate was not having any authority to receive the copies on behalf of the appellant on a plea that has been taken by the Income Tax Department through their counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit relying upon Rule 82 (d) of the Office manual of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-I-A/e to the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the Respondent). Learned Senior Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advocate of the appellant. Appellant has not been able to explain the delay from 13.09.2017 when the copies of the order was served upon his advocate till the commencement of the lock down. Therefore, the delay being huge without any proper explanation, prayer for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. 5. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the sequence of dates as also the rival grounds urged on behalf of the parties in support and opposition to the prayer for condonation of delay. We are not convinced with the plea taken by the appellant that the counsel for the appellant was not authorized to accept service of copies of the impugned order in view of the categorical language of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
