Fraud classification show-cause notices founded on inconclusive forensic audit material cannot sustain action, permitting fresh proceedings on conclus...
Appellate enhancement limits protect against new income sources, while documented credits and prior-year investments resist unexplained-income additio...
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners' explanation for a 93-day delay in filing the statutory appeal - namely incapacitation of their consultant supported by a psychiatrist's certificate - was reasonable, plausible and not indicative of gross negligence or deliberate laches. The court condoned the delay, set aside the impugned appellate order dated March 29, 2025, and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with directions limited to restoration of the appeal for fresh hearing before the appropriate appellate forum.
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners' explanation for a 93-day delay in filing the statutory appeal - namely incapacitation of their consultant supported by a psychiatrist's certificate - was reasonable, plausible and not indicative of gross negligence or deliberate laches. The court condoned the delay, set aside the impugned appellate order dated March 29, 2025, and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with directions limited to restoration of the appeal for fresh hearing before the appropriate appellate forum.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.