COURT: | ITAT Amritsar |
CORAM: | B. R. Baskaran (AM) |
SECTION(S): | 254, 5 of Limitation Act |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | Condonation of delay |
COUNSEL: | P. N. Arora |
DATE: | October 22, 2019 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | November 16, 2019 (Date of publication) |
AY: | 2006-07 |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
Condonation of delay of 571 days: Mistake of counsel may be taken into account in condoning delay. Claim that the delay was caused by Counsel not communicating the order has to be accepted unless it is shown that blame put on counsel is with malafide intentions in order to cover up mistake/lapse on the part of the assessee. As per human conduct and probabilities, a professional counsel cannot be expected to admit his lapses as it may affect his reputation. Also, if the appeal is adjudicated on merits, refusing to condone the delay is an error (All imp judgements referred) |
When an assessee authorizes a counsel to appear on his behalf, such authorization is given by placing faith on the legal expertise of the Counsel and also with the hope that the counsel shall take care of the interest of the assessee. Hence, when there is a lapse on the part of the legal counsel, in my view, the assessee should not be found fault with, unless it is shown that the blame put on the counsel with malafide intentions in order to cover up the mistake/lapse on the part of the assessee.
Recent Comments