Inconsistent defence on misuse of demat accounts failed to distinguish earlier merit dismissal, and the appeal was dismissed.

An appeal filed after a delay of 727 days was found to be materially similar to earlier connected appeals dismissed on merits because the transactions were admitted. The appellants' stand before the original authority that their demat accounts were misused was inconsistent with their later claim before the Tribunal that they had no knowledge of the transactions, so the attempt to distinguish the earlier order was untenable. The appeal was therefore treated as without merit and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal, filed with a delay of 727 days, deserved to be entertained and whether the appellants could distinguish the earlier dismissal of similar appeals on merits.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the earlier connected appeals had been dismissed where the transactions were admitted. It found that the present appellants had themselves taken a stand before the original authority that their demat accounts were misused, which was inconsistent with the explanation offered before the Tribunal that they had no knowledge of the transactions. On that basis, the attempt to distinguish the earlier order was held to be untenable, and the case was treated as materially similar to the earlier batch.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be without merit and was dismissed.

---