HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong v. M/s S.S. Netcom Private Limited
MC(ITA) No. 1 of 2023 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
821-day delay condoned on sufficient cause; miscellaneous application disposed, Registry to diarize appeal for consideration.
Division Bench · H. S. Thangkhiew · B. Bhattacharjee
1. Facts of the case
The Principal Commissioner sought condonation of an 821-day delay in preferring an income-tax appeal. The assessee had filed an objection to the condonation application.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The application invoked section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court noted that the grounds for delay appeared in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the application. Those grounds are not reproduced in the order, so the precise factual explanation cannot be extracted from this source.
3. Judicial decision
The Court found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it. It directed that the appeal be taken up for consideration.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
MC(ITA) No.1 of 2023 was disposed of and the Registry was directed to diarize the appeal. The underlying tax merits remained for consideration.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Record this as a procedural condonation decision on the stated record. The length of delay alone is not presented as a rule entitling other litigants to condonation; the Court relied on sufficient cause in an application whose detailed grounds are absent here. No current-law clearance or merits inference is made.
Source and verification
Complete supplied order, 1 page(s). Every page read and visually inspected. No assessment year or PAN is stated. Referenced applications, earlier orders and subsequent compliance are not included unless expressly identified.
Source SHA-256: ed5ce0195803ada606e23a337b739efdcd492fcef743fe14c140c90b6bad1f62
Only provisions expressly identified in this order are recorded. No substantive tax merits or current statutory equivalence is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-18. Later proceedings, compliance and current precedential treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from an identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.