(1.) THESE two original petitions have been filed against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in M.P. Nos. 185 and 186 of 1997 dated January 23, 1998 refusing to condone the delay of 29 days in filing the appeals. The appeals were filed by these petitioners against orders of assessment for the year 1994 -95 with a delay of 29 days. In the delay condonation application, the reason given is that the assessee was out of station in connection with the business and therefore, appeals could not be filed in time.
(2.) THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order, would observe that - -
(3.) BUT , Section 38A is specific that only when the Special Tribunal is satisfied that there was irregularity in the proceedings or the correctness or legality or propriety of the decision passed by the lower authorities is not to the satisfaction, then the Special Tribunal is entitled to modify or annul, reverse or remit the matter for consideration. In this matter, it cannot be stated that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner observing that he was not convinced with the reason given by the assessee for not filing the appeals in time, is illegal or irregular. It is open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner either to accept or reject the reasoning given by the assessee. If the assessees were aggrieved of the orders, certainly, it was open to them to file appeals against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But, in these cases, the assessees have been keeping quiet nearly about 2 1/2 years and resorted to these original petitions. In the original petitions, this Tribunal cannot go into the question whether the reasoning given by the assessee for keeping himself away from the headquarters on his business tour, is true or not. Therefore, I find that these original petitions are not sustainable before this Tribunal for appreciating or otherwise, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissing the delay condonation petition.