https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273684 Condonation of 257 days' delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was refused because the affidavit explaining the delay was found unsatisfactory. The deponent, a chartered accountant, stated that a clerk received the ITAT order on 02.06.2016, but no inquiry was made about the order until 24.05.2017, which the Court held was not a credible explanation for the inordinate delay. As the delay explanation failed, the appeal was dismissed solely on limitation grounds and the merits were not examined. en-us Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jul 2018 05:50:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273684 Condonation of 257 days' delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was refused because the affidavit explaining the delay was found unsatisfactory. The deponent, a chartered accountant, stated that a clerk received the ITAT order on 02.06.2016, but no inquiry was made about the order until 24.05.2017, which the Court held was not a credible explanation for the inordinate delay. As the delay explanation failed, the appeal was dismissed solely on limitation grounds and the merits were not examined. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273684