<JGN>N.Pachuau</JGN>, A.M. - (1.)THIS appeal is filed by the Revenue and the relevant assessment year is 1986-87. The appeal was marked as time-barred by 93 days for which the AO has submitted a petition for condonation of the appeal. The only reason for the delay was due to non-receipt of certified copy of the appellate order appealed against till the date of filing the appeal. Shri D. K. Biswas, the learned Departmental Representative, has submitted that the delay may be condoned in view of the explanation filed by the AO.
(2.)Shri Sampat K. Jain, the learned counsel of the assessee opposed the condonation petition. It is stated that the long delay was not at all satisfactorily explained. Non-receipt of certified copy of the appellate order appealed against cannot be accepted as reasonable cause for the delay. It is submitted that the Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, in ITA No. 643 (Gau) and 644 (Gau) of 1991 dt. 12th December, 1996 in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Kamal & Associates considered similar petition and declined to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the appeal. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed in limine.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions and the facts of the case. The appellate order appealed against was communicated to the CIT, N.E, Region, Shillong, on 27th March, 1991. Therefore, the appeal was due to be filed on or before 26th May, 1991 before the Tribunal. However, the present appeal was filed on 28th August, 1991. There was, therefore, a delay of 93 days. The only reason stated was non-receipt of a certified copy from the first appellate authority. On careful consideration of the submissions and the arguments made by the rival parties, I hold that the explanation tendered by the AO cannot be accepted as reasonable cause for the long delay. The Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, in their decision in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Kamal & Associates (supra) cited and relied on by the assessee's counsel had duly considered a similar issue. The explanation to r. 9 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and the circular issued by the CIT, Shillong, dt. 31st July, 1990 were also duly taken into consideration. As the aforesaid explanation to r. 9 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules was inserted w.e.f. 1st August, 1987 and the aforesaid circular of the CIT dt. 31st July, 1990, the plea taken by the AO cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for the long delay. For the reasons stated above, the explanation tendered by the AO is not accepted as reasonable cause and the long delay cannot be condoned. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

(3.)SINCE the appeal is dismissed it is not considered necessary to go into the merits of the impugned appeal to order of the first appellate authority.