https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794017 Condonation of delay was refused because the assessee had knowledge of the demand at the latest on receipt of the Section 245 communication and by filing the revision under Section 264, yet filed the appeal much later without satisfactorily explaining the intervening delay. The HC held that the concurrent findings of substantial delay and absence of sufficient cause were supported by the record and showed no perversity or legal infirmity. As a result, no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A, the refusal to condone delay was upheld, and the impugned orders were sustained. en-us Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jun 2026 08:33:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794017 Condonation of delay was refused because the assessee had knowledge of the demand at the latest on receipt of the Section 245 communication and by filing the revision under Section 264, yet filed the appeal much later without satisfactorily explaining the intervening delay. The HC held that the concurrent findings of substantial delay and absence of sufficient cause were supported by the record and showed no perversity or legal infirmity. As a result, no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A, the refusal to condone delay was upheld, and the impugned orders were sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794017