HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong v. Dhar Construction Company
MC(ITA) No. 1 of 2024 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
187-day delay application: reasons found unacceptable; Court required Rs 10,000 costs to Shillong Bar Association within two weeks of receipt of order and receipt production before Registry diarization if otherwise in order.
Division Bench · S. Vaidyanathan · W. Diengdoh
1. Facts of the case
Revenue sought condonation of 187 days in filing an appeal against the ITAT, Guwahati order dated 2 January 2023. Its affidavit attributed the delay to circumstances beyond its control and stated that the appeal could not be filed by 29 July 2023.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Revenue relied on section 260A(2)(a), whose 120-day period runs from receipt of the order appealed against. The assessee argued that delay should run from when the order was ready and exceeded 200 days, and challenged the genuineness of Revenue’s explanation. The Court recorded these submissions and the statutory text.
3. Judicial decision
The Court found the reasons unacceptable and stated that delay could not be condoned without costs. It required Revenue to pay Rs 10,000 to the Shillong Bar Association within two weeks from receipt of the order. On production of that receipt, the Registry was to diarize the appeal if otherwise in order.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The order provided conditional procedural relief and directed listing of the appeal for admission on 10 April 2024. It did not determine the tax merits or establish subsequent compliance with the costs condition.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Preserve the payment recipient, amount, deadline measured from receipt of the order, and production-of-receipt condition. The text records but does not separately adjudicate the competing date-calculation arguments. A same-party later withdrawal must be reconciled by docket evidence before being described as the outcome of this particular application.
Source and verification
Complete supplied order, 3 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: 9e2c1066ad956ad9f36164019d843ed19b340549754d6f9807267b5502d80021
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.