https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349093 The Bombay HC allowed appeals challenging the Tribunal's refusal to condone a 2984-day delay in filing appeals. The assessee had relied on advice from Chartered Accountants, which the Tribunal deemed wrong and absurd, faulting the assessee for blindly accepting such advice without verification. The HC held that the Tribunal misdirected itself by considering irrelevant factors and failing to properly assess whether sufficient cause existed for the delay. The court found the Tribunal's approach inappropriate, noting it blamed all parties rather than focusing on legal principles governing condonation of delay. The HC concluded the assessee's explanation was uncontested and reasonable, showing no deliberate delay or lack of bona fides. The delay was condoned subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 costs within eight weeks, after which the Tribunal must restore the appeals for merit-based adjudication. en-us Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 17:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349093 The Bombay HC allowed appeals challenging the Tribunal's refusal to condone a 2984-day delay in filing appeals. The assessee had relied on advice from Chartered Accountants, which the Tribunal deemed wrong and absurd, faulting the assessee for blindly accepting such advice without verification. The HC held that the Tribunal misdirected itself by considering irrelevant factors and failing to properly assess whether sufficient cause existed for the delay. The court found the Tribunal's approach inappropriate, noting it blamed all parties rather than focusing on legal principles governing condonation of delay. The HC concluded the assessee's explanation was uncontested and reasonable, showing no deliberate delay or lack of bona fides. The delay was condoned subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 costs within eight weeks, after which the Tribunal must restore the appeals for merit-based adjudication. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349093