Allowed

M/s. Madhupala Estates (P) Ltd., v. Income Tax Officer

Telangana HC8 Sept 2016ITTA/346/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of an application for condonation of delay. The Court held the dismissal was impermissible as the Tribunal overlooked that an affidavit from an advocate cannot replace the required affidavit from the authorized representative.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's order dismissing the condonation application is set aside; the condonation application is allowed; the Tribunal is directed to number the appeal and dispose of it.

M/s. Madhupala Estates (P) Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶4

I.T.T.A.No. 346 of 2016

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per VRS,J)

¶6

Aggrieved by the dismissal of an application for condonation of the delay of 354 days in filing a statutory appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has come up with the above appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶7

The only question of law raised in the appeal is as to whether the Tribunal’s findings are perverse or not.

¶8

Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned senior standing counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for the respondent.

¶9

The only ground, on which the Tribunal dismissed the condone

¶10

delay petition, is that though the appellant claimed that the delay was due to a wrong advice tendered by their authorized representative, the affidavit of the authorized representative was not filed. But unfortunately, the Tribunal failed to see that in applications for condonation of delay, reliance cannot be placed upon the affidavit of

¶11

VRS,J & ANIS,J ITTA No. 346 of 2016

¶12

¶13

advocates for the parties. This is probably the reason why the assessee did not file the affidavit of the advocate. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the application for condonation of the delay was dismissed by the Tribunal, on a ground that it is not available. Hence, the order requires to be set aside.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order is set aside, the condone delay petition is allowed, and the Tribunal is directed to number the appeal and take up for disposal, in course of time.

¶15

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the

¶16

appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶17

__________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J ____________________ ANIS, J. 8^th September, 2016 cbs

¶18

VRS,J & ANIS,J ITTA No. 346 of 2016

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN 

¶21

AND

¶22

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶23

I.T.T.A.No.346 of 2016 (Per VRS,J)

¶24

8^th September, 2016

¶25

cbs

M/s. Madhupala Estates (P) Ltd., v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Madhupala Estates (P) Ltd., v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guru Nanak Educational Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

Madarsa-I-Aizza Educational Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

Chatla Venkatesham Memorial (Cvm) Educational Society Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad

Mohd. Abdul Khader Memorial Educational Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

E.v.R.Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director Vs Kandregula Radhika

Avanthi Educational Society. Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)