| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2815 2010 SLD 2815 (2010) 327 ITR 139 |
Madras High Court
F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Alacrity Housing Limited
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Law:
Section:
Section 249 of the Income-tax Act 1961 - Commissioner (Appeals) - Form of Appeal and Limitation Where according to managing director of assessee-company there was strike in company and there was no regular working in office, it escaped from attention of concerned authority to prefer appeal in time, delay in filing appeal was to be condoned [In favour of assessee] The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c ) by an order dated 26-4-2005. The appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 178 days along with an application for condoning the delay. The assessee's application for condonation of delay was not allowed. Held that, there was a strike in the assessee-company, which prevailed between March 2004 and the first week of October 2005. The order, which was the subject-matter of appeal was dated 26-4-2005. The appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 21-11-2005, i.e., about one and a half years from the strike situation which prevailed in the appellant's factory. Even, according to the Department, the notice was served only on an employee by name. According to the deponent, who was the managing director, of the assessee-company since the company was on strike, there was no regular working in the office and, therefore, it escaped from the attention of the concerned authority to prefer the appeal in time. The principles of natural justice warranted an opportunity to be extended to the appellant to challenge the order by which, a serious civil consequence followed, namely imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs. 1.84 crore on the appellant. Viewed in that respect, the delay of 178 days in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned. V.S. Jeyakumar for the Appellant. K. Subramanian for the Respondent. JUDGMENT F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. - By consent of parties, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The question of law raised in this appeal is : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) declining to condone the delay of 178 days in filing the appeal ?" 3. The…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492