9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate Tax explaining the delay. The aforesaid explanation given by the petitioner has not been considered by the appellate authority. The appellate authority ought to have, in the given facts taken note of the explanation given by the petitioner praying for condonation of delay. The appellate authority having not considered the same and having mechanically rejected the said prayer, the order dated cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. Admittedly, the petitioner had made pre-deposit as required for maintaining the appeal under Section 107 of the said Act. Taking into consideration the aforesaid and the explanation given by the petitioner, the petitioner has been able to sufficiently explain the delay in filing the above a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to accept the same, inasmuch as, the petitioner despite being called upon to appear on 11th March, 2024, had failed to appear on the said date. 4. Mr. Dutta, learned advocate representing the petitioner by placing before this Court the explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in preferring the appeal, which also forms part of the appeal, submits that the appellate authority did not consider the grounds on which the petitioner had sought for condonation of the delay. There is no reflection in the order that the appellate authority had considered the explanation given by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had been able to sufficiently explain the delay, notwithstanding the aforesaid, the appeal had been rejected on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er impugned despite recording that the petitioner s advocate appeared before him and had a prayer for condonation of delay on 7th March, 2024, however, since none appeared on 11th March, 2024, such prayer for condonation of delay was not accepted. In my view, the appellate authority ought to have, in the given facts taken note of the explanation given by the petitioner praying for condonation of delay. The appellate authority having not considered the same and having mechanically rejected the said prayer, the aforesaid order dated 11th March, 2024 in my view cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. 7. Having regard to the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S .K. Chakraborty Sons v. Union ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
