https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92546 The HC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the AT's impugned order dated 06.02.2019, holding the AA's confirmation of property retention legally unsustainable. The court observed that while leniency may apply to condonation of delay in re-filing appeals, appellants must still show sufficient cause; however, given prolonged pendency and prior consideration of delay, detailed scrutiny of a 143-day delay was unnecessary. Crucially, the AA failed to give reasoned findings as required by Sections 8(2) and 8(3) of the PMLA and could not rely on absence of the Respondent to avoid independent adjudication. The HC concluded that the AA's order was mechanical and void, and affirmed the AT's decision, dismissing the appeal. en-us Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:02:41 +0530 Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:02:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92546 The HC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the AT's impugned order dated 06.02.2019, holding the AA's confirmation of property retention legally unsustainable. The court observed that while leniency may apply to condonation of delay in re-filing appeals, appellants must still show sufficient cause; however, given prolonged pendency and prior consideration of delay, detailed scrutiny of a 143-day delay was unnecessary. Crucially, the AA failed to give reasoned findings as required by Sections 8(2) and 8(3) of the PMLA and could not rely on absence of the Respondent to avoid independent adjudication. The HC concluded that the AA's order was mechanical and void, and affirmed the AT's decision, dismissing the appeal. Highlights Money Laundering Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:02:41 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92546