ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) The Tribunal has rejected the second appeal of the assessee insofar as condonation of delay in filing of first appeal was concerned, on the ground that there was no explanation furnished before the First Appellate Authority. It has also been recorded that although the responsibility had been owned by the lawyer, but there was no affidavit of the lawyer on record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist, with reference to the document annexed along with memo of appeal, filed before the First Appellate Authority, states that an affidavit of Sri Sudama Kumar Garg, Advocate, existed on record, which has not been examined. It is also contended that admitted liability of tax had also been deposited along with the First Appeal. Submission is that in such circumstances the appeal filed by the revisionist was liable to have been examined on merits, instead of revisionist being shut out on the ground of delay.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State points out that question as to whether affidavit did exist on record of the First Appellate Authority or not, can be examined.;