Condonation of delay and Rajeev Bansal coverage: Revenue's petitions were disposed of in line with the earlier ruling.

Gross delay in the Revenue's Special Leave Petitions was found to be unsatisfactorily explained, so the delay was not condoned and the petitions were not entertained on that basis. The matters were treated as governed by the earlier ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, and the petitions were disposed of in terms of that decision. Assessing officers were to decide objections in accordance with that legal position, while assessees remained free to pursue available remedies on issues not concluded by the earlier judgment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Revenue should be entertained despite gross delay, and whether they stand governed by the earlier judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.

Analysis: The delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions was found to be gross and not satisfactorily explained. The matters were treated as covered by the earlier decision, and the Revenue's petitions were directed to be disposed of in terms of that judgment. The order also recorded that the assessing officers would decide the objections in accordance with the law laid down therein, leaving the assessees free to pursue available remedies on surviving issues.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the Revenue's petitions were disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment, with the assessees remaining entitled to pursue remedies in accordance with law on issues not concluded by that judgment.

---