Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone an inordinate delay of 562 days in filing. The assessee's explanation that the delay was due to a period of custody was rejected, as custody ended long before the impugned CIT(A) order and the filing of appeal, and multiple hearing notices were duly issued to the assessee and its authorised representative. ITAT held that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation under settled law. Though the Tribunal noted that the penalty notices under s. 271(1)(c) were defective for not specifying a clear charge, the appeal itself was not entertained on account of the unexplained delay.
ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone an inordinate delay of 562 days in filing. The assessee's explanation that the delay was due to a period of custody was rejected, as custody ended long before the impugned CIT(A) order and the filing of appeal, and multiple hearing notices were duly issued to the assessee and its authorised representative. ITAT held that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation under settled law. Though the Tribunal noted that the penalty notices under s. 271(1)(c) were defective for not specifying a clear charge, the appeal itself was not entertained on account of the unexplained delay.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.