https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273638 An inordinate 865-day delay in re-filing an appeal was not condoned because the explanation was found unconvincing, particularly where the relevant court-fees amendment had been in force earlier and notice had already been given for filing soft copies. The court also noted that the departmental setup should have monitored the appeal and prevented the lapse. On merits, no substantial question of law arose because the Tribunal had followed an earlier decision concerning the assessee's group company, which in turn rested on prior binding precedent. The appeal therefore failed on both procedural delay and absence of any arguable legal issue. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jul 2018 10:18:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273638 An inordinate 865-day delay in re-filing an appeal was not condoned because the explanation was found unconvincing, particularly where the relevant court-fees amendment had been in force earlier and notice had already been given for filing soft copies. The court also noted that the departmental setup should have monitored the appeal and prevented the lapse. On merits, no substantial question of law arose because the Tribunal had followed an earlier decision concerning the assessee's group company, which in turn rested on prior binding precedent. The appeal therefore failed on both procedural delay and absence of any arguable legal issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273638