https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783307 ITAT Indore dismissed the assessee's appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone a delay of 562 days in filing. The assessee's explanation that the delay was due to being in custody was rejected, as the custodial period (21.03.2021 to 29.11.2021) ended long before the CIT(A)'s order dated 20.05.2023 and the eventual filing on 31.01.2025. The Tribunal noted that multiple hearing notices were duly issued by CIT(A) to various e-mail addresses, including that of the present authorised representative. On merits, ITAT held that the penalty notices under s. 271(1)(c) were defective for not specifying a clear charge, but the appeal ultimately failed on limitation. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2025 08:28:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783307 ITAT Indore dismissed the assessee's appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone a delay of 562 days in filing. The assessee's explanation that the delay was due to being in custody was rejected, as the custodial period (21.03.2021 to 29.11.2021) ended long before the CIT(A)'s order dated 20.05.2023 and the eventual filing on 31.01.2025. The Tribunal noted that multiple hearing notices were duly issued by CIT(A) to various e-mail addresses, including that of the present authorised representative. On merits, ITAT held that the penalty notices under s. 271(1)(c) were defective for not specifying a clear charge, but the appeal ultimately failed on limitation. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783307