https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190947 The Court upheld the decision to refuse condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 30 of the Income-tax Act, citing lack of sufficient grounds. It also ruled that the requirement for personal signature on the memorandum of appeal was valid and within the powers granted under Section 59 of the Act. The order refusing to entertain the appeal was classified under Section 30(2) rather than Section 31, as the delay was not condoned. The assessee was directed to pay costs, including a counsel fee of Rs. 500. en-us Wed, 28 Sep 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:39:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190947 The Court upheld the decision to refuse condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 30 of the Income-tax Act, citing lack of sufficient grounds. It also ruled that the requirement for personal signature on the memorandum of appeal was valid and within the powers granted under Section 59 of the Act. The order refusing to entertain the appeal was classified under Section 30(2) rather than Section 31, as the delay was not condoned. The assessee was directed to pay costs, including a counsel fee of Rs. 500. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Sep 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190947