K.SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee is before us in the above revisions challenging the orders of the Tribunal for two years, 2006-07 and 2007-08 imposing penalty on the assessee- revision petitioner.

(2.) The ground on which the appeals were rejected by the Tribunal was the gross delay occasioned, which also was not properly and satisfactorily explained. There was a delay of 612 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. We also notice that the revisions filed before the Deputy Commissioner, which led to the appeals before the Tribunal, were also delayed by 1958 days. The Deputy Commissioner also rejected the revisions on the ground of the delay being not explained satisfactorily. The Tribunal, in fact, found that there was no explanation offered for the delay. The medical condition projected according to the Tribunal was supported by certain documents, which if at all, could only offer an explanation for the delay before the Deputy Commissioner. Before the Tribunal, the appeals were filed with a delay of 612 days for which there was no explanation offered.

(3.) The Tribunal had also specifically looked at the affidavit filed by the assessee and found that he had no consistent case. The assessee had admitted in the affidavit that the Advocate had received the copy of the order of the Deputy Commissioner on 28.12.2015, which was later misplaced by the Advocate. However, from the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it was found that copy of the order was directly sent to the assessee and not to the Advocate. An inconsistent case was again projected in the statement of facts that the copy of the order was received by the Tax Practitioner and lost from the custody of the Tax Practitioner. Finding inconsistencies in the explanation set up for the delay and also the fact that the order was directly sent to the assessee, the Tribunal found no reason to condone the delay. We also do not think that any interference can be caused to the order, especially looking at the delay caused at the first stage before the Deputy Commissioner and then again in appeals before the Tribunal.