https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274474 The Court dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 439 days in filing, rejecting the argument that pursuing an alternate remedy justified the delay. It clarified that the application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act was not an alternative to filing an appeal under Section 260 A, emphasizing that the time period for filing an appeal does not pause during the pendency of other applications. The Court highlighted the importance of timely compliance with statutory provisions and the necessity of valid justifications for delays in legal proceedings. en-us Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:19:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274474 The Court dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 439 days in filing, rejecting the argument that pursuing an alternate remedy justified the delay. It clarified that the application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act was not an alternative to filing an appeal under Section 260 A, emphasizing that the time period for filing an appeal does not pause during the pendency of other applications. The Court highlighted the importance of timely compliance with statutory provisions and the necessity of valid justifications for delays in legal proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274474