https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791561 Condonation of a 193-day refiling delay requires a coherent, defect-wise and date-wise explanation showing sufficient cause, even though the standard is applied with liberality. The explanation here was held unsatisfactory because the defects flagged by the Registry were generic and the applicant was already aware of the handwritten and vernacular documents filed with the appeal, yet did not cure the defects diligently despite repeated s. The method of excluding the seven-day curing period from each defect cycle was also rejected as an incorrect way to compute delay. The delay was therefore not shown to be beyond the applicant's control, and condonation of refiling delay was refused; the appeal memo was also rejected. en-us Mon, 11 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 May 2026 17:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791561 Condonation of a 193-day refiling delay requires a coherent, defect-wise and date-wise explanation showing sufficient cause, even though the standard is applied with liberality. The explanation here was held unsatisfactory because the defects flagged by the Registry were generic and the applicant was already aware of the handwritten and vernacular documents filed with the appeal, yet did not cure the defects diligently despite repeated s. The method of excluding the seven-day curing period from each defect cycle was also rejected as an incorrect way to compute delay. The delay was therefore not shown to be beyond the applicant's control, and condonation of refiling delay was refused; the appeal memo was also rejected. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 11 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791561