Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Thru. Director/ Authorized Officer

1. Facts of the case

A delay-condonation application was before the Court in Income Tax Application Defective 1/2024.

Source: PDF p.1

2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court

The Court directed notice rather than deciding sufficient cause.

Source: PDF p.1

3. Judicial decision

Issue notice; take steps both ways and file service affidavit within two weeks. List 3 October 2024.

Source: PDF p.1

4. Outcome / in whose favour

Delay condonation and the main application remained undecided.

Source: PDF p.1

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.

Notice on delay does not decide sufficient cause

The heading identifies the order as one on the delay-condonation application in Income Tax Application Defective 1/2024. Notice and a service affidavit within two weeks were directed before listing on 3 October 2024. Neither the length of delay nor the explanation was assessed.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order

Record the procedural stage accurately

For U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam, this source establishes an opportunity for service and response, not admission of the main application or condonation by implication. The notice direction must be followed by the actual service and later decision before any conclusion about maintainability is drawn.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order