Meghs Gold Pvt. Ltd v. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/999/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 999 of 2006 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ MEGHS GOLD PVT. LTD.....Appellant(s) Versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 25/11/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has preferred the present Tax Appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 1664/Ahd/2001 for AY 1996-97. 2.While admitting this appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not condoning the delay of 38 days in filingtheappealbeforethe Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ?” 3.We have heard the learned advocate appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. Learned advocate Mr Soparkar appearing for the appellant has contended that in view of settled principle of law, 38 days delay caused in preferring an appeal before CIT(A) is required to be condoned and both the authorities below have committed an error in not deciding the O/TAXAP/999/2006 JUDGMENT appeal on merits. Keeping in mind the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji And Others, reported in 167 ITR 471, the delay of 38 days caused in the preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) is condoned. The question is answered in favour of assessee and against the revenue. The CIT(Appeals) shall hear the appeal on merits. The present Tax Appeal is allowed accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) mandora (K.J.THAKER, J)