https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448887 ITAT Raipur dismissed the appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone a 384-day delay in filing. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notice u/s 250, but the tribunal found the conduct lackadaisical and callous. Despite receiving a letter u/s 133(6) on 31.03.2023 indicating an ex-parte CIT(A) order from 12.09.2022, the assessee waited another 9 months to file the appeal. The tribunal held that limitation laws must be construed strictly and delay cannot be condoned mechanically without sufficient cause. The assessee failed to provide plausible reasons justifying the inordinate delay. en-us Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2024 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448887 ITAT Raipur dismissed the appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone a 384-day delay in filing. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notice u/s 250, but the tribunal found the conduct lackadaisical and callous. Despite receiving a letter u/s 133(6) on 31.03.2023 indicating an ex-parte CIT(A) order from 12.09.2022, the assessee waited another 9 months to file the appeal. The tribunal held that limitation laws must be construed strictly and delay cannot be condoned mechanically without sufficient cause. The assessee failed to provide plausible reasons justifying the inordinate delay. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448887