https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787509 Delay of 297 days in filing appeals was considered; justification based on seasonal staff engagement, change of Secretary, and non-receipt of orders was unsupported by corroborative evidence. Electronic notices were issued and the assessee responded to the initial notice but then remained non-responsive, indicating casual and negligent prosecution. Applying principles requiring examination of conduct, bona fides and whether normal care could have avoided the delay, the record shows the delay was avoidable and not a sufficient cause for condonation; consequently the appeals are barred by limitation and dismissed. en-us Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Mar 2026 08:39:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787509 Delay of 297 days in filing appeals was considered; justification based on seasonal staff engagement, change of Secretary, and non-receipt of orders was unsupported by corroborative evidence. Electronic notices were issued and the assessee responded to the initial notice but then remained non-responsive, indicating casual and negligent prosecution. Applying principles requiring examination of conduct, bona fides and whether normal care could have avoided the delay, the record shows the delay was avoidable and not a sufficient cause for condonation; consequently the appeals are barred by limitation and dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787509