Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 1,370 days, holding that the appellant failed to establish "sufficient cause" for the delay and did not demonstrate requisite due diligence in prosecuting the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden rests on the appellant to explain delay and that authorities are not obliged to investigate causes. Reliance on erroneous advice of a tax consultant, without contemporaneous steps or plausible justification, did not absolve the appellant-a private limited company-of statutory obligations; although no mala fides were found, the delay was substantial and unjustified, and the appeal was barred by lapse of time.
The ITAT dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 1,370 days, holding that the appellant failed to establish "sufficient cause" for the delay and did not demonstrate requisite due diligence in prosecuting the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden rests on the appellant to explain delay and that authorities are not obliged to investigate causes. Reliance on erroneous advice of a tax consultant, without contemporaneous steps or plausible justification, did not absolve the appellant-a private limited company-of statutory obligations; although no mala fides were found, the delay was substantial and unjustified, and the appeal was barred by lapse of time.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
