<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1985 (6) TMI 51 - ITAT BOMBAY-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58983</link>
    <description>An appeal dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred remains an appellate order and is appealable to the Tribunal. Refusal to condone delay therefore falls within the appellate framework and does not bar further challenge. Delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is established through credible, record-supported circumstances showing bona fides and prompt action after the relevant assessment order and demand notice came to attention. On the stated facts, the managing director&#039;s absence and accident, the former accountant&#039;s negligence, and subsequent prompt action supported condonation. The first appeal was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:10:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97438" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (6) TMI 51 - ITAT BOMBAY-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58983</link>
      <description>An appeal dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred remains an appellate order and is appealable to the Tribunal. Refusal to condone delay therefore falls within the appellate framework and does not bar further challenge. Delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is established through credible, record-supported circumstances showing bona fides and prompt action after the relevant assessment order and demand notice came to attention. On the stated facts, the managing director&#039;s absence and accident, the former accountant&#039;s negligence, and subsequent prompt action supported condonation. The first appeal was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>