https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16006 The Board retained jurisdiction to decide condonation of delay applications under section 119(2)(b) where the record did not show any transfer divesting that power. Belated rectification applications under section 154 required condonation, and the Chief Commissioner's forwarding of the Commissioner's report did not by itself amount to a transfer of proceedings. The Board's refusal to condone the delay was made after considering the relevant report and was not arbitrary. The challenge to the refusal therefore failed. en-us Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:45:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16006 The Board retained jurisdiction to decide condonation of delay applications under section 119(2)(b) where the record did not show any transfer divesting that power. Belated rectification applications under section 154 required condonation, and the Chief Commissioner's forwarding of the Commissioner's report did not by itself amount to a transfer of proceedings. The Board's refusal to condone the delay was made after considering the relevant report and was not arbitrary. The challenge to the refusal therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16006