https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782007 ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal refused to condone a delay of 816 days in filing Form 36, holding that mere plea of mistake of counsel is not sufficient and the assessee, having filed appeal before CIT(A) in time, could not claim ignorance of income-tax proceedings. Relying on SC precedent that mistake of counsel is not always a ground for condonation, the delay petition was rejected in limine. On merits, ITAT upheld the AO's action treating the unexplained difference of agricultural income (Rs. 6,92,876) as income from other sources, and all grounds of the assessee were dismissed. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782007 ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal refused to condone a delay of 816 days in filing Form 36, holding that mere plea of mistake of counsel is not sufficient and the assessee, having filed appeal before CIT(A) in time, could not claim ignorance of income-tax proceedings. Relying on SC precedent that mistake of counsel is not always a ground for condonation, the delay petition was rejected in limine. On merits, ITAT upheld the AO's action treating the unexplained difference of agricultural income (Rs. 6,92,876) as income from other sources, and all grounds of the assessee were dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782007