Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 984 2008 SLD 984 (2008) 296 ITR 380
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.A.I.T. No. 33 OF 2007, MARCH 2, 2007
DIPAK MISRA AND R.K. GUPTA, JJ.
Sanjay Mishra for the Appellant. Rohit Arya and Sanjay Lal for the
Respondent.

Babulal Jain

v.

Income Tax Officer

Law:

Section:

Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal - Order of Where delay of 12 days in filing appeal had occurred as there was strike of SBI and payment of assessee could not be received and after strike was over he had arranged for money and had come to Jabalpur for depositing fees for appeal, delay was to be condoned as he was prevented by sufficient cause [A.Y 1999-2000] In the absence of counsel for the appellant the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was barred by 12 days. The submission of the appellant was that due to unavoidable circumstance he could not appear before the Tribunal and further that, the Tribunal should have either adjourned the matter or should have afforded him an opportunity to put forth the case with regard to the condonation of delay of 12 days. It was further submitted that the Tribunal had taken recourse to hyper technical view in regard to the sufficient cause, though application explaining the condonation of delay of 12 days had been filed: Held that the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal occurred as there was strike of the SBI and the payment of the assessee could not be received and after strike was over he had arranged for the money and had come to Jabalpur for depositing fees of the appeal and, hence, he was prevented by sufficient cause. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the assessee on the ground that no documentary evidence had been produced. The Tribunal, as was manifest, had not held that there was no strike in the State Bank of India. The Tribunal had decided the matter in the absence of both the parties. The Tribunal had adopted and taken a hyper technical view. The assessee had proffered adequate reasons. The rejection of the appeal on the ground of delay when sufficient cause had been shown amounted to perversity of approach. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal was to be set aside and the case was to be remitted back to the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits. JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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