9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (6) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are the following: The appellant-company was served with the demand notice and the assessment order for the assessment year 1980-81 on 27-9-1983 and the last date for filing of the appeal against the said order to the Commissioner (Appeals) was 27-10-1983. The appellant filed the appeal on 31-12-1983 resulting in a delay of 63 days. In response to the show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant submitted a written reply dated 29-3-1984 and requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay for the reasons stated in the said letter. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, held that the service of the demand notice on the appellant's accountant on 27-9-1983 was not denied, that if the accountant was indulging in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the delay of 63 days on the part of the appellant-company was not due to any negligence or lack of diligence, but due to circumstances beyond their control and that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay by accepting the explanation offered by the appellant-company as constituting sufficient cause for the said delay. 4. Shri R.D. Mahadeshwar, the learned departmental representative, opposed these contentions by pointing out that the appeal to the Tribunal was not itself maintainable. He argued that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was one under section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), which corresponds to section 30(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ('the 1922 Act'), and that, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at an appeal presented out of time is an appeal and an order dismissing it as time barred is one passed in appeal. In this decision, the Supreme Court has considered the decisions of the various High Courts, including the two decisions cited by the revenue, before resolving the conflict among the various High Courts. Accordingly, the objection of the revenue to the maintainability of the appeal has to be rejected on this short ground. Further, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present case has to be treated as an order passed under section 251(1)(c), read with section 250 of the Act by respectfully following the said decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mela Ram Sons. Therefore, the present appeal to the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances in which the appellant-company could not file the appeal within the statutory period of 30 days. It can hardly be disputed that a company or for that matter any employer has to rely on his subordinates for carrying out the duties entrusted to them, properly. In the present case, it is seen that the former accountant of the appellant-company was not attending to his work with due care and diligence, as he should, and for his negligence and in difference to his work, the appellant-company had expelled him from the service. The facts stated by the managing director in his affidavit only reiterate the facts already stated in the letter to the Commissioner (Appeals) and these facts have not been found to be incorrect by the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
