Delayed challenge to reassessment reopening beyond four years after s.143(3) u/s147 dismissed as time-barred The dominant issue was whether the appeal/petition could be entertained despite delay. The SC held that the filing delay was not condoned and, as a ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Delayed challenge to reassessment reopening beyond four years after s.143(3) u/s147 dismissed as time-barred
The dominant issue was whether the appeal/petition could be entertained despite delay. The SC held that the filing delay was not condoned and, as a consequence, declined to examine the merits of reassessment under s.147 following an original s.143(3) assessment and reopening beyond four years. Outcome: the petition was dismissed as time-barred, leaving the HC's quashing of the reassessment notice undisturbed.
The Supreme Court disposed of the matter at the threshold without entering into the merits. The petition was rejected solely on the procedural ground of delay, indicating that the Court found the filing to be belated and not fit for consideration on substantive issues. The operative holding is succinct: "The petition is dismissed on the ground of delay." As a result, no questions of law or fact were adjudicated, and no relief was granted. The order reflects the principle that unexplained or inordinate delay can be sufficient to deny discretionary or extraordinary relief, and that litigants must act with due diligence to invoke the Court's jurisdiction within a reasonable time.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
