YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey and Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsels for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) This revision is directed against an order of the Tribunal dated 28 July 2017 which has affirmed a decision of the First Appellate Authority dated 4 September 2015 rejecting an application for condonation of delay which had occurred in the filing of the First Appeal.
(3.) From the facts as noticed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the order of the Assessing Authority dated 29 February 2008 was served upon the assessee on 20 March 2008. The First Appeal admittedly was preferred on 16 February 2015 after a delay of seven years. The explanation proffered was that on account of an inordinate mistake on the part of the lawyer of the assessee, the appeal could not be preferred. This explanation was also supported by the affidavit of the concerned lawyer as well as of the appellant. The Tribunal has taken the view that the delay of seven years was not satisfactorily explained. It becomes relevant to note that although the revisionist had placed reliance upon the judgment in Ajanta Arts v. CST, 1987 U.P.T.C. and other decisions of the Court, the Tribunal has proceeded to reject the application noting that the delay which formed subject matter of consideration in the said judgments was of 3-4 years whereas the delay in the present case was of 7 years.;