Case Law Details
Jamna Devi Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court)
The matter comes up for consideration of the application (CMCC No.97/2022) preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant-assessee with a prayer to condone the delay of 1060 days caused in filing the present income tax appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has submitted that the impugned order was pronounced by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the ITAT’) on 07.06.2018, however, the copy of the said order was not furnished to the appellant-assessee by the ITAT. It is also submitted that though, the appellant-assessee was represented through her counsel before the ITAT but her counsel also did not inform her about the impugned order. It is further submitted that as the appellant-assessee was not having any information of passing of the impugned order, the delay caused in filing the present income tax appeal is bonafide and, therefore, the same may be condoned.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Income Tax Officer has opposed the application (CMCC No.97/2022) preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and argued that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the ITAT has already been supplied to the counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee before the ITAT and as such the requirement of supplying the same to the appellant-assessee has already been complied with.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration of the averments made in the application (CMCC No.97/2022) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent-Income Tax Officer, we are of the opinion that the delay caused in filing the present income tax appeal is satisfactorily explained by the appellant-assessee and the said delay is bonafide.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
