https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414887 Delay of 921 days in filing an appeal was not condoned because the explanation was found unsatisfactory and lacked a reasonable, cogent and bona fide account of the delay. Reliance on pending litigation in another matter and movement of governmental files did not amount to sufficient cause, and the explanation failed to cover the period between the impugned judgment and the start of the lockdown. The Court reiterated that limitation binds all litigants, including the Government, and that condonation requires due diligence. The application for condonation was dismissed. en-us Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414887 Delay of 921 days in filing an appeal was not condoned because the explanation was found unsatisfactory and lacked a reasonable, cogent and bona fide account of the delay. Reliance on pending litigation in another matter and movement of governmental files did not amount to sufficient cause, and the explanation failed to cover the period between the impugned judgment and the start of the lockdown. The Court reiterated that limitation binds all litigants, including the Government, and that condonation requires due diligence. The application for condonation was dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414887