Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Petition Dismissed Due to 371-Day Delay in Filing; Previous Cases Cited; All Applications Disposed</h1> <h3>PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI (CENTRAL 3) Versus SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL</h3> The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petition due to a gross delay of 371 days in filing. Although the delay in refiling was condoned, the Court, ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of clear charge/Default - HC decided [2023 (8) TMI 1373 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Revenue does not dispute that none of the penalty notices issued to the respondent/assessee for the aforementioned AYs advert to the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) which is triggered against him. It is not clear whether the AO intended to levy a penalty on the respondent/assessee for concealment of particulars of his income, or furnishing inaccurate particulars. HELD THAT:- There is gross delay of 371 days in filing this Special Leave Petition. Delay in refiling is condoned. Following the orders passed by this Court in [2024 (9) TMI 1698 - SC ORDER], [2024 (9) TMI 1698 - SC ORDER] and [2024 (7) TMI 975 - SC ORDER] in the case of the very same respondent-assessee, we dismiss the application seeking condonation of delay. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition also stands dismissed. The Supreme Court, in a judgement by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, noted a gross delay of 371 days in filing a Special Leave Petition. The delay in refiling was condoned. Referring to previous orders in similar cases, the Court dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. Any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.