K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1 OF 2009 M/s.Pitta Weaving Mill, Solapur )..Appellant Vs. The CIT Pune City-IV )..Respondents ---- Ms.Aasifa Khan for the appellant. Mr.J.S.Saluja i/by Vimal Gupta for the respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 19.3.2009. PC 1. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal against which the assessee has approached this Court. 2. There was a delay of 279 days in preferring the appeal. Learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis that in respect of the same assessee for other A.Y. the Tribunal has found the cause not to be sufficient and consequently dismissed the appeal. It also noted that there was a defficiency of payment of court fees. 3. The law as now explained by the Supreme Court in the matter of condonation of delay is to test the bonafide of the parties. In other words whether the : 2 : assessee herein is diligent in pursuing the remedy at law may be even after the delay. An appeal was preferred by the assessee before CIT(A). That was heard and disposed off. The quantum appeals were filed within time. These are appeals for penalty. The stand of the assessees is that they have given the orders to the C.A.for the purpose of pursuing the appeal. It is only when the tax dues were sought to be recovered that the assessees came to know about non filing of the appeal and as soon after that the appeals had been preferred. Thus it is submitted would amount to sufficient cause and consequently, the Tribunal directed not to condone the delay. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In our opinion, considering that the appellant was pursuing his remedy and the very party has approached this court against the order of the Tribunal indicates that they are interested in impugning the order of penalty. The fact that C.A. did not file appeal in time could not have resulted in denying the appellant an opportunity of being heard. At the highest costs could have been imposed in the matter. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, revenue can be compensated by the costs. In the light of that, impugned order of the Tribunal : 3 : is set aside. The delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. Appellant to take steps to pay additional court fees if any within a period of six weeks from today. This order is subject to the appellant paying to the respondents cost quantified at Rs.5000/- within a period of six weeks from today. The cheque to be drawn in favour of Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune City-IV. Appeal disposed off accordingly. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)