Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules governs restoration of a petition dismissed for non-appearance and requires an application within thirty days on showing sufficient cause. The NCLAT held that a restoration request filed about five months after dismissal for non-prosecution was time-barred and could not be saved by inherent powers under Rule 11 or the general power to extend time under Rule 15, because those powers cannot override an express procedural mandate. It also found no sufficient cause for condonation, noting repeated absence, prolonged non-prosecution and inadequate vigilance despite reliance on counsel's lapse. The rejection of restoration was upheld.
Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules governs restoration of a petition dismissed for non-appearance and requires an application within thirty days on showing sufficient cause. The NCLAT held that a restoration request filed about five months after dismissal for non-prosecution was time-barred and could not be saved by inherent powers under Rule 11 or the general power to extend time under Rule 15, because those powers cannot override an express procedural mandate. It also found no sufficient cause for condonation, noting repeated absence, prolonged non-prosecution and inadequate vigilance despite reliance on counsel's lapse. The rejection of restoration was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.