https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470068 Condonation of an 894-day delay in appealing against a revision order requires a proper and satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay. The explanation that the assessee and its chartered accountant believed an appeal was necessary only against the consequential assessment order did not account for the further delay of nearly two years after that assessment order. The stated reasons therefore failed to constitute a sufficient explanation for the complete delay. The ITAT Mumbai did not condone the delay, and the appeal was dismissed in limine as unadmitted. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jul 2026 19:02:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470068 Condonation of an 894-day delay in appealing against a revision order requires a proper and satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay. The explanation that the assessee and its chartered accountant believed an appeal was necessary only against the consequential assessment order did not account for the further delay of nearly two years after that assessment order. The stated reasons therefore failed to constitute a sufficient explanation for the complete delay. The ITAT Mumbai did not condone the delay, and the appeal was dismissed in limine as unadmitted. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470068