https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362140 A 374-day delay in moving to set aside rejection of an appeal for non-removal of office objections was found unjustified. The motion followed dismissal of the appeal under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, but the Revenue had already received multiple extensions and gave no specific explanation for the period of inaction after the last extension. General references to administrative difficulty and staff shortage were treated as unparticularised and not bona fide, and therefore insufficient to support condonation of the delay. The delay was not condoned and the motion was rejected. en-us Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jul 2018 18:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362140 A 374-day delay in moving to set aside rejection of an appeal for non-removal of office objections was found unjustified. The motion followed dismissal of the appeal under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, but the Revenue had already received multiple extensions and gave no specific explanation for the period of inaction after the last extension. General references to administrative difficulty and staff shortage were treated as unparticularised and not bona fide, and therefore insufficient to support condonation of the delay. The delay was not condoned and the motion was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362140