https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788662 Refusal to condone a 1,460-day delay in filing a revision application under section 264 was treated as a plausible view and not interfered with in writ jurisdiction because the explanation for delay was vague and the assessee's continued statutory compliance showed no sufficient cause for late filing. The writ court declined to disturb that discretionary refusal under Article 226. Any observations on the merits were directed to be ignored and not treated as precedent. en-us Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:05:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788662 Refusal to condone a 1,460-day delay in filing a revision application under section 264 was treated as a plausible view and not interfered with in writ jurisdiction because the explanation for delay was vague and the assessee's continued statutory compliance showed no sufficient cause for late filing. The writ court declined to disturb that discretionary refusal under Article 226. Any observations on the merits were directed to be ignored and not treated as precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788662