https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356829 A 632-day delay in moving to set aside a self-operating order dismissing an appeal for non-removal of office objections was not condoned because the application gave no date of knowledge, no particulars explaining the delay, and no effective justification. The Court treated the delay as wholly unexplained and reiterated that a party, especially the Revenue, must act with diligence in pursuing appeals; casual or negligent conduct cannot amount to sufficient cause. The application was rejected, and no time extension was granted to revive the dismissed appeal. en-us Thu, 01 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356829 A 632-day delay in moving to set aside a self-operating order dismissing an appeal for non-removal of office objections was not condoned because the application gave no date of knowledge, no particulars explaining the delay, and no effective justification. The Court treated the delay as wholly unexplained and reiterated that a party, especially the Revenue, must act with diligence in pursuing appeals; casual or negligent conduct cannot amount to sufficient cause. The application was rejected, and no time extension was granted to revive the dismissed appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 01 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356829