AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant is an assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957. While concluding the assessment for the year 1998-99, the Assessing Officer had made additions to the declared coffee income of the assessee and also disallowed certain expenses claimed under the head ''wages'', the additions was to the tune of Rs. 18,84,000/- over and above the declared coffee income and disallowance of expenses was to the tune of Rs. 10,96,330/- under the head ''wages''.
The assessee being aggrieved by this order, had questioned the same before the Joint Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax by filing an appeal. The assessee got some substantial relief as the Appellate Commissioner reduced the additions from Rs. 18,84,000/- to Rs. 9,42,000/- and disallowed expenses was reduced to Rs. 6,30,213/-.
The appellant-assessee still being not satisfied preferred an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by sending appeal papers by post to the Tribunal on 27.12.2001. After sending such papers, the assessee kept blissfully silent and the assessee''s contention was that the Tribunal had not responded to filing of his appeal papers.
The assessee woke up and got alerted when demand notice was served on the assessee on 4.1.2011 demanding the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 25,06,620/-. Thereafter, the appellant -- assessee had filed an application for recalling the order dated 30.04.2002 rejecting the appeal of the assessee as one not presented in a proper form and defects not rectified and it was put on the notice board of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found no occasion to review that order after lapse of more than nine years from the date of filing of the appeal.
Questioning this order dated 27.06.2011 rejecting the application to restore the appeal filed by recalling the earlier order, the assessee approached this court by filing writ petition.
The learned single Judge after issue of notice to learned Government Advocate examined the matter and found that there was no merit in the contentions urged in the writ petition and opined that the petitioner therein was very recalcitrant in not following the appeal which he had filed and the application for recalling being filed after nine years, but not coming up with any worthwhile explanation for Condonation of delay in presenting such application praying for recalling the order of rejection of the appeal, the learned single Judge opined the assessee cannot harp on the duties of the authorities alone but he also has some responsibility to follow up the matter and in this view of the matter, opined that the assessee has not shown required diligence and not even properly explained the delay, dismissed the writ petition.
It is against this order dismissing the writ petition, the present writ appeal.
Appearing on behalf of the appellant, submission of Sri. Basavaiah, learned counsel is that the appellant is not questioning the order on merits, but only had sought for restoration of the matter to be heard on merits so that he can agitate the matter, but the Tribunal dismissed the application; that the rejection of the appeal by the Tribunal was in contravention, of. Regulation - 53 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1979 wherein it is indicated that every order passed by the Tribunal should be communicated to the party and as the order of rejection had not been communicated, the appellant-petitioner was not aware of the order and this was proper situation to condone the delay etc.
The learned single Judge did notice this aspect and after noticing that the matter had been notified on the notice board of the Tribunal, it was held that it was a fair communication and it is in this context the observation was made that the assessee was not diligent and therefore was not entitled for any relief.
The learned single Judge was of the opinion that rejection of the appeal is not one such final determination in the appeal and the order is well within the scope of Regulation - 53 of the Regulations.
A perusal of Regulation - 53 indicates about the final order or Judgment passed by the Tribunal to be communicated. In the present case, rejection of appeal as not maintainable is not one such order. We do not find much scope to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
If the appellant had not cared to set right his appeal papers, more so having sent it by post and the Tribunal could not entertain the appeal for want of proper presentation, it cannot be said that there is any error in that regard and therefore non compliance of regulation 53 [a] or 53[b] of the regulations would not arise. Therefore, writ appeal is dismissed.