Jyoti v. Jani

C/TAXAP/920/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 920 of 2018 ==========================================================SHREE JALARAM FINANCEVersusINCOME TAX OFFICER==========================================================Appearance:MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 24/09/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Notice for final disposal was issued in this Appeal. Appellant-assessee has challenged the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.01.2018 refusing to condone the delay in filing Tax Appeal. Tax Appeal before the Tribunal was directed against the order of Income Tax Appellate Commissioner. Though there was delay in excess of 600 days, the assessee had sought to explain such delay entirely on the ground that the order of the Commissioner under challenge was not served for close to two years perhaps because the assessee firm had closed down its business and was in deep financial difficulties. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay primarily on the ground that though some other partners may have ceased to be active, the other partners were still in India and managing the affairs of the firm. In the process, the assessee has challenged the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.01.2018 refusing to condone the delay in filing Tax Appeal. Tax Appeal before the Tribunal was directed against the order of Income Tax Appellate Commissioner. Though there was delay in excess of 600 days, the assessee had sought to explain such delay entirely on the ground that the order of the Commissioner under challenge was not served for close to two years perhaps because the assessee firm had closed down its business and was in deep financial difficulties. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay primarily on the ground that though some other partners may have ceased to be active, the other partners were still in India and managing the affairs of the firm. In the process, the issue of starting point of limitation for filing appeal was lost sight of. The period of limitation was begin to run upon communication of the order under challenge. In the present case, the assessee's assertion that such order was not served earlier was not contested by the Revenue. In that view of the matter, appeal is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is reversed. Tax Appeal is restored to the file of the Tribunal which may be disposed of on merits. (AKIL KURESHI, J) JYOTI V. JANI (B.N. KARIA, J)