https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777892 SC considered petitions challenging HC's affirmation of ITAT's refusal to condone inordinate delays of seven years and 104 days in one appeal and six years and 83 days in another. ITAT had held that the assessee was grossly negligent, fully aware of the CIT(A) orders, and failed to exercise due care in pursuing the second appeals, improperly attempting to shift blame to counsel. HC upheld these findings. SC found no infirmity or perversity in the ITAT and HC orders and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. en-us Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2026 17:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777892 SC considered petitions challenging HC's affirmation of ITAT's refusal to condone inordinate delays of seven years and 104 days in one appeal and six years and 83 days in another. ITAT had held that the assessee was grossly negligent, fully aware of the CIT(A) orders, and failed to exercise due care in pursuing the second appeals, improperly attempting to shift blame to counsel. HC upheld these findings. SC found no infirmity or perversity in the ITAT and HC orders and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777892