https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465351 The dominant issue was whether a 309-day delay in filing an appeal before the ITAT should be condoned. The appellant attributed the delay to the CIT(A) order being delivered to an email account of prior counsel, but the ITAT held the appellant itself had furnished that email in Form 35 and found it implausible that the e-filing portal was not accessed for 309 days, rendering the explanation unsubstantiated and not a "good and sufficient" cause. Condonation was refused, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred without examining the merits. en-us Tue, 28 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 21:52:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465351 The dominant issue was whether a 309-day delay in filing an appeal before the ITAT should be condoned. The appellant attributed the delay to the CIT(A) order being delivered to an email account of prior counsel, but the ITAT held the appellant itself had furnished that email in Form 35 and found it implausible that the e-filing portal was not accessed for 309 days, rendering the explanation unsubstantiated and not a "good and sufficient" cause. Condonation was refused, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred without examining the merits. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465351