“Section 249(3)”

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice, but delay will not be condoned if sufficient cause is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires material evidence that the assessed amount does not represent the assessee's income and proof of conscious concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A penalty cannot be sustained merely because income is assessed on an estimation basis without positive evidence of concealment.

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act after the assessee files a return in response to a Section 148 notice and scrutinizes that return.