https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789207 The Madras HC reiterated that interference with an appellate tribunal's discretionary order condoning delay is justified only where the discretion is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or based on untenable grounds. In a benami-law appeal involving a 763-day delay, the tribunal had accepted the department's explanation and considered the connected appeals and the need to decide the matter on merits. As no material was shown to establish improper exercise of discretion, the condonation of delay was upheld and no interference was made. en-us Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Apr 2026 08:53:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789207 The Madras HC reiterated that interference with an appellate tribunal's discretionary order condoning delay is justified only where the discretion is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or based on untenable grounds. In a benami-law appeal involving a 763-day delay, the tribunal had accepted the department's explanation and considered the connected appeals and the need to decide the matter on merits. As no material was shown to establish improper exercise of discretion, the condonation of delay was upheld and no interference was made. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789207