At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S. VIMALA
For the Appellant: S. Sridhar, Advocate. For the Respondent: S. Rajesh, Advocate, J. Narayanasamy, Standing Counsel.
S. Vimala, J.
1. This tax case (appeal) has been filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated October 9, 2013, declining to condone the delay of 754 days in filing the appeal, raising the following substantial questions of law :
"1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation in spite of the managing partner's continuing multiple medical complications shown as the reason in the affidavit filed in support of the plea for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal before them ?
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law for not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before them to challenge the unreasonable and wrong disallowances which resulted in additions in the computation of taxable total income by the respondent upon overlooking the binding principles la
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
id down by the apex court reported in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji  167 ITR 471 (SC);  62 Comp. Cas. 370 (SC);  66 STC 228 (SC) ?
3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law for not considering the grounds of appeal formed part of statutory Form No. 36 in challenging the wrong addition made in the computation of taxable total income even though the said disallowances were challenged on various legal facets?"
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
The assessment in this case relates to the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of running of lorry on contract basis. The assessee had filed its return of income for the assessment year in question disclosing income of Rs. 2,83,653. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment disallowed the entire freight expenditure and 50 per cent. of the miscellaneous expenditure claimed by the assessee. As against the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, by order dated December 27, 2010, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer except reducing the disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure at 25 per cent. As against the said order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated December 27, 2010, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with a delay of 754 days. The Tribunal, by order dated October 9, 2013, dismissed the appeal holding that the explanation offered by the assessee was not satisfactory. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal declining to condone the delay, the assessee is before this court.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this court.
4. It is seen that as against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated December 27, 2010, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal along with a petition to condone the delay of 754 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, wh