https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791030 Writ interference with rejection of condonation under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act was refused because the applicant failed to show specific, bona fide and cogent material establishing genuine hardship. General claims such as staff shortage, retirements, transfers, COVID-related disruption, and auditor or chartered accountant negligence were treated as unsupported assertions. The authority had passed a speaking order after considering the grounds, and the delay in approaching the authority was substantial. Cited precedents were distinguished on facts, and the rejection was not found to be erroneous, contrary to law, or perverse. en-us Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 May 2026 09:09:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791030 Writ interference with rejection of condonation under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act was refused because the applicant failed to show specific, bona fide and cogent material establishing genuine hardship. General claims such as staff shortage, retirements, transfers, COVID-related disruption, and auditor or chartered accountant negligence were treated as unsupported assertions. The authority had passed a speaking order after considering the grounds, and the delay in approaching the authority was substantial. Cited precedents were distinguished on facts, and the rejection was not found to be erroneous, contrary to law, or perverse. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791030