https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756338 ITAT Mumbai allowed appellant's challenge to CIT(A)'s dismissal of condonation application for 380-day delay in filing appeal. CIT(A) rejected condonation despite appellant's explanation that accounting employee inadvertently missed penalty order email due to high email volume, supported by detailed affidavit. ITAT held CIT(A) adopted hyper-technical approach, noting statutory appeal right under section 248 cannot be denied on technical grounds absent inordinate delay or gross negligence. Finding genuine reasons and credible employee affidavit with no contrary evidence, ITAT set aside CIT(A)'s order and restored case for hearing. en-us Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Aug 2024 08:32:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756338 ITAT Mumbai allowed appellant's challenge to CIT(A)'s dismissal of condonation application for 380-day delay in filing appeal. CIT(A) rejected condonation despite appellant's explanation that accounting employee inadvertently missed penalty order email due to high email volume, supported by detailed affidavit. ITAT held CIT(A) adopted hyper-technical approach, noting statutory appeal right under section 248 cannot be denied on technical grounds absent inordinate delay or gross negligence. Finding genuine reasons and credible employee affidavit with no contrary evidence, ITAT set aside CIT(A)'s order and restored case for hearing. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756338