https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285958 The Karnataka HC allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal's decision that dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The Tribunal had refused to condone a 310-day delay, citing insufficient cause. The HC found the delay was due to a change in the company's Managing Director and noted that leniency is often granted to Government entities due to bureaucratic processes. The HC held that the appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay and directed the Tribunal to consider the appeal on its merits, without revisiting the limitation issue. No costs were awarded. en-us Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Feb 2024 12:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285958 The Karnataka HC allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal's decision that dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The Tribunal had refused to condone a 310-day delay, citing insufficient cause. The HC found the delay was due to a change in the company's Managing Director and noted that leniency is often granted to Government entities due to bureaucratic processes. The HC held that the appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay and directed the Tribunal to consider the appeal on its merits, without revisiting the limitation issue. No costs were awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285958