https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202370 Sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay was not established where the applicant knew of the proceedings at different stages but still failed to explain the relevant period of delay. A claimed bona fide belief and reliance on counsel were held insufficient on the facts, and the pendency of a co-accused's matter was immaterial because it did not account for the delay in the present restoration application under the Limitation Act. The application was therefore liable to be rejected. en-us Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:33:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202370 Sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay was not established where the applicant knew of the proceedings at different stages but still failed to explain the relevant period of delay. A claimed bona fide belief and reliance on counsel were held insufficient on the facts, and the pendency of a co-accused's matter was immaterial because it did not account for the delay in the present restoration application under the Limitation Act. The application was therefore liable to be rejected. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202370