VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) WITH the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this revision is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself, as the matter has not been decided by the Tribunal on merits but the second appeal of the dealer has been dismissed on the ground of delay.
(2.) HEARD Sri Nishant Misra, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party. The first appeal of the dealer pending before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was decided against the dealer by order dated December 18, 2002 relating to the assessment year 1997 -98 (U.P.). Against the said order time barred second appeal was filed on March 14, 2007, i.e., beyond the prescribed limit by three years eleven months and seventeen days. The appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay which was supported by an affidavit stating therein that the proprietor of the firm had suffered with a head injury in an accident and was confined to bed from December 20, 2002 till February 15, 2007. In support of the same it filed medical prescription of Swasthik Hospital and Heart Centre, New Delhi. The Tribunal by the impugned order was not satisfied with the explanation tendered and accordingly rejected the delay condonation application by the impugned order dated March 22, 2007 and consequently the appeal was also dismissed.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the same, present revision has been filed. At the time of filing of this revision the following order was passed on April 22, 2007: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Tribunal has dismissed the second appeal of the revisionist on the ground of delay and laches. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks time to obtain instructions with regard to the date of service of the first appellate order on the assessee, as in his application dated March 14, 2007 filed before the Tribunal for the condonation of delay, the assessee had stated in para 2 that the first appellate order was not served upon him and he got the certified copy only on March 12, 2007. If this fact is correct, the question of limitation may not arise at all for the filing of the second appeal. List on May 21, 2007.;