{"id":59354,"date":"2026-04-07T11:38:58","date_gmt":"2026-04-07T06:08:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/vidya-shankar-jaiswal-v-ito-2025-305-taxman-83-sc-editorial-vidya-shankar-jaiswal-v-ito-2024-162-taxmann-com-284-chhatttishgarhhc\/"},"modified":"2026-04-07T11:38:58","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T06:08:58","slug":"vidya-shankar-jaiswal-v-ito-2025-305-taxman-83-sc-editorial-vidya-shankar-jaiswal-v-ito-2024-162-taxmann-com-284-chhatttishgarhhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/vidya-shankar-jaiswal-v-ito-2025-305-taxman-83-sc-editorial-vidya-shankar-jaiswal-v-ito-2024-162-taxmann-com-284-chhatttishgarhhc\/","title":{"rendered":"Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. ITO (2025) 305 Taxman 83 (SC) Editorial : Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. ITO (2024) 162 taxmann.com 284 (Chhatttishgarh)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>An appeal was preferred by assessee before Tribunal wherein there was a delay of 166 days. Tribunal declined to condone delay. An appeal was preferred against said order by assessee before High Court which had also been dismissed. On SLP court held that\u00a0 Tribunal and High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning delay of 166 days. Accordingly the orders were to be set aside by condoning delay in preferring appeal and Tribunal was to decide appeal in accordance with law. (AY. 2014-15)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Delay of 166 days-On SLP court held that the Tribunal and High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning delay of 166 days. Accordingly the orders were to be set aside by condoning delay in preferring appeal and Tribunal was to decide appeal in accordance with law. [S. 253(1), 260A, Art. 136]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-frk","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59354","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59354"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59354\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":59355,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59354\/revisions\/59355"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59354"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}