- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
CESTAT gives reprieve on delay in drafting the appeal
CESTAT gives reprieve on delay in drafting the appeal
It directs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to give the appellant an opportunity for a hearing and decide the case on merit
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled in favor of the appellant despite the two days' delay on his part in filing the appeal.
The tribunal stated that the appellant had pleaded that it happened due to the delay in drafting the appeal and calculation error. Since the reasons were sufficiently explained, these could be overlooked.
The appellant had challenged the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wherein his appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation. The CIT (A) had maintained that although the appellant had filed an application of condonation of delay, he gave no substantial reason for it.
However, the appellant contended that the impugned order was received on 20 April 2017 and he had filed the appeal on 22 June 2017. This meant that instead of the permissible 60 days, he had taken 62 days. He further explained that the delay happened due to calculation error, and also the time taken in drafting and filing the appeal.
CESTAT's Judicial Member Anil Choudhary accepted the contentions of the appellant and held, "I find that the delay is sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the delay of two days before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is condoned and is allowed by way of remand to the CIT (A) for deciding the appeal on merits, after hearing the appellant.