<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (9) TMI 661 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263993</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to dismiss the appeal due to an inordinate delay of 554 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, as no separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the Tribunal highlighting that the issue of the service of notice under section 143(2) was not addressed due to the dismissal based on the delay in filing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2015 07:15:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 661 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263993</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to dismiss the appeal due to an inordinate delay of 554 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, as no separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the Tribunal highlighting that the issue of the service of notice under section 143(2) was not addressed due to the dismissal based on the delay in filing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>