Case Law Details
Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court); HC held that Tribunal, out of sheer desperation and frustration and agitated by the fact that the Revenue is not opposing the request for condonation of delay, turned its attention towards the assessee’s Chartered Accountant. It is unfortunate that thereafter paragraphs after paragraphs are devoted to how a Chartered Accountant ought to conduct himself and while advising litigants in tax matters. How a Chartered Accountant, as a professional, should be aware that legal proceedings should be filed in time and if there are adverse orders, how proper advice should be given. It is very unfortunate that the Tribunal has, apart from seeking to advice professionals, blamed not only individual Chartered Accountants but equally the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. It is unfortunate that Courts of law or Tribunals, which are the last fact finding authorities in this case, adopted this course.
ORAL ORDER ( Per Shri S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ):
1. These two appeals arise out of the Tribunal’s order refusing to condone the delay. The delay was in bringing the appeals to the Tribunal. The delay, as far as Income Tax Appeal No.508 of 2015 is concerned, computed by the Tribunal/Registry is of 2984 days. Similar is the position with regard to Income Tax Appeal No.493 of 2015 for the Assessment Year 199697 before us.
2. In the prior assessment year of 199495, Income Tax Appeal No.5418 and for the subsequent year 199697 Income Tax Appeal No.5419, both of 2011, were filed by an individual assessee in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai.
3. The application seeking condonation of delay in both appeals, was taken up by the Tribunal together. Meaning thereby, the application for condonation of delay in both the appeals is disposed of by this common order dated 2082014.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
