https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751805 Delay of 166 days in filing the second appeal was not condoned because the assessee failed to show sufficient cause. The HC held that although "sufficient cause" receives a liberal construction, the explanation must still be bona fide and consistent with normal litigant conduct. The assessee's persistent non-compliance, including failure to file the return in time, inadequate participation in assessment proceedings, non-response to appellate notices, and no satisfactory explanation for the delay, showed lackadaisical conduct. The challenge to the Tribunal's refusal to condone delay was rejected, leaving the assessment and appellate orders undisturbed. en-us Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Apr 2024 12:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751805 Delay of 166 days in filing the second appeal was not condoned because the assessee failed to show sufficient cause. The HC held that although "sufficient cause" receives a liberal construction, the explanation must still be bona fide and consistent with normal litigant conduct. The assessee's persistent non-compliance, including failure to file the return in time, inadequate participation in assessment proceedings, non-response to appellate notices, and no satisfactory explanation for the delay, showed lackadaisical conduct. The challenge to the Tribunal's refusal to condone delay was rejected, leaving the assessment and appellate orders undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751805