J AND K SMALL SCALE INDS DEV CORP LTD Vs. ASSTT C I T RANGE I
LAWS(IT)-2008-1-27
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 25,2008

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THESE are assessee's appeals for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87 and 1990-91. The Registry has taken an objection that these appeals have been filed with a delay of 2 years 9 months and 14 days.
(2.) The facts are that the CIT(A) disposed of the first appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87 and 1990-91, vide a consolidated order dated 1-11-2003. As per Section 253(3), an appeal, in order to be within limitation, can be filed before the Tribunal within sixty days of the date on which the order of the CIT(A), was communicated to the assessee. As per Form No. 36, Column 9, the date of communication of the order of the CIT(A) to the assessee, is 16-12-2003. Therefore, the appeals could have been filed within limitation on or before 14-2-2004. However, these appeals have been filed only on 30-11-2006. According to the applications for condonation of delay originally filed, the delay incurred is of 1021 days. The Registry, as stated hereinabove, has objected that this is delay of 2 years 9 months and 14 days, i.e., 1017 days. However, it is seen, the actual delay incurred is that of 2 years 11 months and 15 days, i.e., 1079 days. In the application for condonation of delay in I.T.A. No. 424(ASR)/2006, for the assessment year 1982-83, as originally filed, it has been stated as follows: The appeal under consideration pertaining to Asstt. Year 1982-83 against the order of worthy CIT(A) received by the appellant Trust on 16-12-2003 is barred by time limitation by 1021 days. The delay is primarily related to the fact that the impugned order of worthy CIT(A) got misplaced and for that very reason, the appeal could not be filed in time. The appellant Trust being a Government owned organization has carried out an enquiry to look into the cause of this misplacement of order and have finally punished the concerned clerk for his negligence. It is, therefore, prayed that the delay in filing this appeal may please be condoned and the appeal treated as filed within the allowed time.
(3.) THE original applications for condonation of delay accompanying all the six appeals, are identically worded.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.