Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal was supported by sufficient cause; (ii) Whether interest earned on deposits with a district central co-operative bank was deductible under section 80P(2)(a)(i) or section 80P(2)(d), and the consequential treatment of related cost of funds.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal was supported by sufficient cause.

Analysis: The assessee's affidavit that the appellate order was not served at its stated email address remained unrebutted. It acted promptly after becoming aware of the order through penalty proceedings.

Conclusion: The delay was caused by sufficient cause and was condoned, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest earned on deposits with a district central co-operative bank was deductible under section 80P(2)(a)(i) or section 80P(2)(d), and the consequential treatment of related cost of funds.

Analysis: The record did not establish the precise provision under which the deduction had originally been claimed. Where deposits represent statutory reserve funds maintained under Rule 28 and the interest is attributable to the specified business activities, the claim requires examination under section 80P(2)(a)(i). Conversely, interest received from a co-operative bank is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d). If such interest is assessed as income from other sources, the related cost of funds must be allowed, with a corresponding adjustment to any deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Conclusion: The eligibility of the interest under section 80P(2)(a)(i) was remitted for verification of the source and statutory character of the deposits. If the claim is under section 80P(2)(d), the deduction is unavailable, but the related cost of funds must be deducted; the issue was remanded with these directions, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Assessing Officer must freshly determine the character of the deposits and apply the applicable deduction provisions and consequential cost-of-funds adjustment.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest earned from a co-operative bank is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d), but where assessed as income from other sources, expenditure constituting the related cost of funds must be allowed; a claim under section 80P(2)(a)(i) depends on whether the income is attributable to the specified business activity.

Issues: Whether the refund claim should be considered under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 rather than Section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The refund was treated by the adjudicating authority as a claim under Section 26A because the assessee had altered its stand before that authority. The assessee asserted that it had subsequently and specifically sought consideration under Section 27 before the Commissioner (Appeals), but did not produce the appeal memorandum, grounds, or written submissions to establish that plea despite being required to do so. The applicability of Section 27 could not be examined without verification of whether that contention was actually raised before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) to verify the assessee's prior pleadings; upon proof of a Section 27 plea, the refund claim must be adjudicated on merits under that provision, and otherwise it shall be considered under Section 26A alone.

Issues: (i) Whether absolute confiscation of the undeclared gold ornaments was warranted, or redemption on payment of fine should be permitted; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed for non-declaration of the gold ornaments required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether absolute confiscation of the undeclared gold ornaments was warranted, or redemption on payment of fine should be permitted.

Analysis: The ornaments were liable to confiscation because they were not declared and no licit import documents were produced. However, the statutory discretion concerning redemption required consideration of the nature of the goods, quantity, manner of carriage, conduct of the passenger, and surrounding circumstances. The goods were finished ornaments weighing 418 grams, rather than commercial quantities of primary gold or bullion; one chain was worn by the passenger, and there was no material showing an organised smuggling operation or ingenious concealment. The contravention was assessed as arising from a bona fide misconception about baggage permissibility rather than a deliberate clandestine import.

Conclusion: The confiscation is sustained, but absolute confiscation is set aside to the extent that redemption is allowed on payment of redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000 in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed for non-declaration of the gold ornaments required reduction.

Analysis: The penalty was found disproportionate in light of the personal nature of the ornaments, absence of demonstrated prior involvement in similar activity, and absence of material linking the passenger to an organised smuggling network.

Conclusion: The penalty is reduced from Rs.6,00,000 to Rs.50,000 in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The goods remain confiscable, but the passenger obtains the statutory option to recover the ornaments by paying the prescribed redemption fine, with a moderated monetary penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where undeclared gold consists of personal ornaments and the circumstances do not establish commercial-scale or organised smuggling, discretion regarding confiscation must be exercised judiciously and redemption with proportionate penalty may be granted.

Issues: (i) Whether the prayers for correction of the company master data and removal of purported directors survived after the Ministry's compliance; (ii) Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to direct investigation into the alleged fraud despite available statutory remedies and pending proceedings before competent fora; (iii) Whether the order permitting the IRP to take protective measures concerning assets should be recalled where affected third parties had not been heard.

Issue (i): Whether the prayers for correction of the company master data and removal of purported directors survived after the Ministry's compliance.

Analysis: The compliance affidavit established that the names reflected as director and additional director had been removed from the master data. The prior direction requiring the company's status to be shown as under CIRP also addressed the remaining status-related grievance.

Conclusion: The master-data and director-related prayers stood satisfied.

Issue (ii): Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to direct investigation into the alleged fraud despite available statutory remedies and pending proceedings before competent fora.

Analysis: The investigation prayer had been rendered infructuous by subsequent restitution and investigative proceedings. Effective remedies were available under the insolvency, anti-money-laundering and company-law regimes, while the CIRP had been revived and the NCLT was already seized of the controversy. In the absence of circumstances warranting departure from the rule of alternative remedy, discretionary writ jurisdiction was not to be exercised.

Conclusion: No writ direction for investigation was warranted; the parties may pursue remedies before the competent statutory fora. This is against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the order permitting the IRP to take protective measures concerning assets should be recalled where affected third parties had not been heard.

Analysis: The affected applicants were not parties to the writ petition when the asset-protection order was made and had no opportunity of hearing. Further, once the writ petition was not being entertained on merits because alternative remedies were available, interim directions could not continue as the sole final relief.

Conclusion: The asset-protection order could not continue and was vacated. This is in favour of the recall applicants.

Final Conclusion: The surviving controversies concerning investigation, assets and restitution are to be pursued and determined by the competent statutory and judicial fora on their own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy is available and the writ court declines merits adjudication, it cannot preserve interim relief as the sole final relief; an order materially affecting non-parties without a hearing also violates natural justice.

Issues: Whether the CNG supply-and-sale arrangement constituted a principal-to-principal sale or a principal-agent arrangement, and whether the respondent-Corporations' activities consequently constituted taxable Business Auxiliary Service.

Analysis: A sale requires transfer of property in goods for a price; agency entails acting on behalf of and subject to the principal's control. The agreements required the respondent-Corporations to provide outlets, infrastructure, utilities and trained personnel; MGL installed and owned the equipment, fixed and revised the retail price, monitored meter readings and supplies, retained inspection rights, and controlled the disposal or return of unsold CNG on termination. The risk and title in CNG did not pass to the respondent-Corporations. The contractual arrangement, read as a whole, therefore established that they facilitated MGL's sales to vehicle owners rather than purchased CNG for resale.

Analysis: The payment linked to actual quantities sold was expressly stipulated as commission/profit margin for services. In the context of MGL's continuing control and ownership, it was remuneration for agency services, not a trade discount. The respondent-Corporations promoted and marketed MGL's CNG and sold it on MGL's behalf, falling within Business Auxiliary Service and the definition of a commission agent.

Conclusion: The arrangement was one of principal and agent, not sale; the respondent-Corporations rendered taxable Business Auxiliary Service to MGL and were liable to service tax.

Issues: Whether exemption for Aluminium Baxter Flyers intended for use in jute mills was available where the job worker cleared the goods to the principal manufacturer for heat treatment and subsequent supply to jute mills, and no intimation was furnished to the jurisdictional officer.

Analysis: Condition 2 required proof to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner that the goods were cleared for their intended use in a jute mill. Baxter Flyers were exclusively usable in jute spinning frames, and the invoices established that, after heat treatment by the principal manufacturer, they were supplied to jute mills. The condition did not require direct supply by the job worker to a jute mill or use of the goods without intermediate processing. The notifications also prescribed no prior or post-clearance intimation requirement; absence of such intimation was, at most, a procedural breach and could not defeat substantive exemption entitlement where intended use was established.

Conclusion: The assessee fulfilled Condition 2 and was entitled to exemption; the duty demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation of goods is covered by the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, so that a declarant is eligible to seek settlement.

Analysis: Section 125 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 specifies the categories excluded from making a declaration under the Scheme. Confiscation of goods or liability to redemption fine is not among those exclusions. The Scheme's objective of resolving legacy indirect-tax disputes, together with the treatment of redemption fine as inseparable from the recoverable duty demand, does not permit rejection of a declaration solely because it includes redemption fine. The departmental interpretation excluding redemption fine from the Scheme was inconsistent with the statutory framework.

Conclusion: Redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is covered by the Scheme, and the assessee is eligible to file a declaration notwithstanding inclusion of redemption fine.

Issues: (i) Whether ten companies falling outside the ten-times turnover range of the assessee could be retained as comparables for software-development-services benchmarking; (ii) Whether Net4Nuts, Systango Technologies Ltd., KSolves and Aptus Software Labs were functionally comparable; (iii) Whether G S S Infotech Ltd. and Cadsys (India) Ltd. should be included as comparables; (iv) Whether a transfer-pricing adjustment for interest on outstanding trade receivables from the associated enterprise was sustainable; (v) Whether notional interest could be added on interest-free loans advanced to a related concern.

Issue (i): Whether ten companies falling outside the ten-times turnover range of the assessee could be retained as comparables for software-development-services benchmarking.

Analysis: Size materially affects operating margins in the software sector because large entities possess operational efficiencies, competitive strength and intangibles not available to a small captive service provider. A turnover filter of ten times on either side of the assessee's turnover was appropriate for selecting comparable entities.

Conclusion: Evoke Technologies Ltd., Mindtree Ltd., Great Software Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Nihilent Ltd., LTIMindtree, Wipro Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., Infosys Ltd., Robosoft Technologies Ltd. and Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd. shall be excluded from the comparable set. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Net4Nuts, Systango Technologies Ltd., KSolves and Aptus Software Labs were functionally comparable.

Analysis: The available annual-report extracts indicated diversified activities, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, application development, cloud computing, network operations and infrastructure management. However, the precise nature and revenue composition of their services, as well as a proper FAR analysis, had not been adequately verified.

Conclusion: The functional comparability of Net4Nuts, Systango Technologies Ltd., KSolves and Aptus Software Labs is remitted for fresh examination. This issue is decided partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether G S S Infotech Ltd. and Cadsys (India) Ltd. should be included as comparables.

Analysis: G S S Infotech Ltd. was excluded solely for alleged failure of the related-party-transaction filter, whereas its annual report showed no related-party transactions for the relevant year. Cadsys (India) Ltd. was excluded without adequate reasons or a sufficient examination of its annual report and FAR profile.

Conclusion: G S S Infotech Ltd. shall be included in the comparable set, and the claim for inclusion of Cadsys (India) Ltd. shall be re-examined. This issue is decided partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether a transfer-pricing adjustment for interest on outstanding trade receivables from the associated enterprise was sustainable.

Analysis: The actual receivable outstanding at year-end was received on the next day and within the allowed credit period. The adjustment was based on average opening and closing receivables and an SBI short-term deposit rate, rather than the actual outstanding position.

Conclusion: The adjustment for interest on outstanding trade receivables shall be deleted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether notional interest could be added on interest-free loans advanced to a related concern.

Analysis: The loan was advanced from interest-free funds for commercial expediency. As both entities were taxable in India, charging interest would result in corresponding income and deduction, rendering the exercise revenue-neutral; the revenue could not substitute its business judgment for that of the assessee.

Conclusion: The addition of notional interest on the interest-free loan shall be deleted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing computation requires revision by excluding the identified high or low turnover comparables, including G S S Infotech Ltd., and conducting fresh verification of the remitted comparable entities; the adjustments on trade receivables and interest-free loans cannot survive.

Issues: Whether an appeal could be declined admission under Section 249(4)(b) where the assessee, having filed no return, claimed that no advance tax was payable because the only income was salary subject to tax deduction at source.

Analysis: Section 249(4)(b) requires payment of an amount equal to advance tax payable where no return has been filed, while its proviso permits exemption upon an application showing good and sufficient reason. Advance-tax computation under Section 209(1) depends upon estimation by the assessee or calculation by the Assessing Officer. Neither calculation had been made. The claim that the assessee had only salary income on which tax had been deducted at source, and consequently had no advance-tax liability, could not be summarily discarded without seeking an explanation. Although no application for exemption under the proviso had been filed, the claim regarding inapplicability of Section 249(4)(b) required consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The refusal to admit the quantum appeal solely by summarily applying Section 249(4)(b) was unsustainable; the question of applicability of that provision, or exemption under its proviso upon an appropriate application, requires fresh determination, following which the quantum appeal must be decided on merits if admissible.

Issues: Whether the challenge to a provisional attachment order survived after the statutory period of attachment had expired.

Analysis: A provisional attachment under Section 83 remains effective for only one year from its date. The impugned attachment order had consequently ceased to operate by efflux of time before disposal of the writ petition, leaving no subsisting order requiring adjudication.

Conclusion: The challenge to the expired provisional attachment order did not survive for adjudication.

Issues: Whether dispensing units installed at retail outlets of a company engaged in refining and marketing petroleum products qualify as new plant or machinery eligible for investment allowance under section 32AC.

Analysis: Section 32AC allows investment allowance to a company engaged in the business of manufacture or production that acquires and installs qualifying new plant or machinery. The dispensing units were accepted as plant and machinery for depreciation purposes and did not fall within any exclusion in section 32AC(4). The manufacturing and marketing operations constituted one integral and indivisible business, with retail dispensing being the necessary terminal stage for selling the petroleum products. The statutory regulatory framework governing sale of petrol and diesel also made dispensing units indispensable to the integrated manufacturing business. The principle applied under the predecessor investment-allowance provision remained applicable because both provisions condition the allowance on engagement in the business of manufacture or production, rather than requiring each eligible asset to be directly used in the physical manufacturing process.

Conclusion: Dispensing units are qualifying new plant or machinery used in the assessee's integrated business of manufacture or production and are eligible for investment allowance under section 32AC; the conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where manufacture and marketing form an integrated business, plant and machinery used at the marketing and sale stage qualifies for investment allowance where the statutory requirement is engagement in the business of manufacture or production and the asset is not otherwise excluded.

Issues: Whether a separate transfer-pricing adjustment for interest on delayed trade receivables from associated enterprises is warranted where the assessee's margin remains higher than that of comparable companies after working-capital adjustment.

Analysis: Separate benchmarking of trade receivables is not excluded merely because the principal international transactions were benchmarked under the transactional net margin method. However, where the working-capital-adjusted margin of the comparable companies is lower than the margin earned by the assessee, the opportunity cost attributable to extended credit is already absorbed in the profitability analysis and no separate adjustment for interest on trade receivables is required. The asserted working-capital adjustment and resultant margins require verification.

Conclusion: The issue is remitted for verification; if the working-capital-adjusted comparable margin is lower than the assessee's margin, the transfer-pricing adjustment for interest on trade receivables shall be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the impugned GST orders.

Analysis: The petitioner elected to avail the appellate remedy, including by filing applications for condonation of delay. No merits of the challenges to the impugned orders were adjudicated. The appellate authority was directed to consider delay on the stated facts and, if satisfied, determine the appeals on merits in accordance with law.

Outcome: The writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to file statutory appeals within two weeks along with statutory pre-deposit and delay-condonation applications.

Issues: Whether revision of the assessment order under Section 263 on the ground that deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was impermissible for want of an original return under Section 139(1) was valid.

Analysis: A return furnished within the period specified in a notice under Section 148 is, by virtue of Section 148(2), to be treated as a return required under Section 139. Sections 148(2) and 80AC must be read conjointly. Since the return was filed within the time allowed by the notice under Section 148, the condition concerning timely filing for deduction under Chapter VI-A stood fulfilled. The deduction related directly to interest arising from the deposits forming the subject of the assessment proceedings, and was therefore not an unrelated claim in a reassessment. The Assessing Officer had examined and accepted the claim; the view adopted was sustainable and could not be characterised as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. The Revenue could not enlarge the revisionary grounds through a fresh contention beyond the show-cause notice and findings underlying the revision order.

Conclusion: The assessment order allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; the revision under Section 263 was invalid.

Issues: (i) Whether the indexed cost of the demolished building was allowable in computing capital gains on sale of the land; (ii) Whether stamp duty paid under a family settlement deed was deductible in computing capital gains; (iii) Whether exemption under Section 54 was available where vacant land was transferred after demolition of the residential structure; (iv) Whether exemption under Section 54F was available in respect of investment in two residential flats.

Issue (i): Whether the indexed cost of the demolished building was allowable in computing capital gains on sale of the land.

Analysis: The remand material, including municipal records and purchaser confirmation, established that a building existed before the sale and was demolished pursuant to the arrangement requiring delivery of vacant possession. The land and superstructure formed a composite capital asset during negotiation, and demolition was integral to the transfer transaction. The description of the conveyed asset as vacant land could not override the actual substance of the transaction for computing real capital gains. The extinguishment of rights in the demolished structure required consideration under the capital-gains computation provisions.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to deduction of the indexed cost or fair market value of the demolished building as cost of improvement, subject to verification and computation by the Assessing Officer; the consequential capital loss may be set off against gains from the land transfer in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether stamp duty paid under a family settlement deed was deductible in computing capital gains.

Analysis: Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for perfecting title to a capital asset may be deductible, but the record did not establish the extent to which the stamp duty under the family settlement deed related specifically to the transferred property and the assessee's share therein.

Conclusion: The claim is restored for verification, and the portion of stamp duty relatable to the transferred property and the assessee's share shall be allowed as a deduction in accordance with law.

Issue (iii): Whether exemption under Section 54 was available where vacant land was transferred after demolition of the residential structure.

Analysis: The registered sale deeds transferred vacant land after the superstructure had been demolished. The statutory precondition of transfer of a residential house was therefore not fulfilled.

Conclusion: Exemption under Section 54 is not available to the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether exemption under Section 54F was available in respect of investment in two residential flats.

Analysis: The amended provision applicable to the relevant assessment year restricts exemption to investment in one residential house in India. Pre-amendment authorities permitting exemption for multiple units did not govern the claim. However, the assessee's affidavit concerning ownership of any other residential property during the relevant financial year required factual verification.

Conclusion: Subject to verification that the assessee did not own disqualifying residential property, exemption under Section 54F shall be granted only for one new residential unit involving the higher investment.

Final Conclusion: Capital gains are to be recomputed after verification of the demolished structure's indexed cost, the relatable stamp-duty expenditure, and eligibility for limited Section 54F relief, while the Section 54 claim remains unavailable.

Ratio Decidendi: For capital-gains computation, the substance of an integrated land-sale transaction prevails over the conveyance description, and the cost of a building demolished as an integral condition of sale cannot be ignored; post-amendment exemption under Section 54F is confined to one residential house in India.

Issues: (i) Whether an assertion in pleadings filed before the Supreme Court, without adjudication on that assertion, binds other courts or determines the statutory regime governing an entity; (ii) Whether mandamus could issue without a prior demand to the statutory authorities and their refusal or neglect to act.

Issue (i): Whether an assertion in pleadings filed before the Supreme Court, without adjudication on that assertion, binds other courts or determines the statutory regime governing an entity.

Analysis: The status of the Supreme Court as a court of record preserves the authenticity of its records and establishes that a pleading was made; it does not confer binding legal force upon an unadjudicated assertion in that pleading. Binding force under Article 141 attaches to law declared through a decision, namely the ratio arising from questions raised and decided, and not to a party's averment on which no finding was rendered. The applicable statutory regime must be determined under the governing statutory framework, having regard to the entity's objects, activities, area of operation and relevant circumstances, and cannot depend on a party's admission, understanding or assertion.

Conclusion: An unadjudicated assertion in Supreme Court pleadings neither constitutes a declaration of law nor conclusively establishes the statutory regime governing the entity; this issue is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether mandamus could issue without a prior demand to the statutory authorities and their refusal or neglect to act.

Analysis: Ordinarily, mandamus requires a demonstrated failure to perform a mandatory duty. The applicant must first make a distinct demand requiring performance and establish refusal or neglect by the concerned authority within a reasonable time. No prior complaint, representation, demand, or refusal was established. Further, the statutory authority had asserted absence of jurisdiction, authority and control over the entity, rendering the premise of the requested directions doubtful.

Conclusion: In the absence of a prior demand and refusal, no mandamus was warranted; this issue is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellant could not rely on an unadjudicated pleading to establish applicability of the asserted corporate law regime, and the prerequisites for invoking mandamus were not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: A pleading recorded in proceedings before a court of record has no binding substantive force absent adjudication, and mandamus ordinarily requires a prior demand for performance of a mandatory duty followed by refusal or neglect.

Issues: (i) Whether Section 73(2) mandates a minimum three-month interval between issuance of the show-cause notice and the adjudication order; (ii) Whether two assessment orders for the same assessment period could proceed on mutually inconsistent bases regarding the exempt or taxable character of supplies.

Issue (i): Whether Section 73(2) mandates a minimum three-month interval between issuance of the show-cause notice and the adjudication order.

Analysis: Section 73(2) must be read with Section 73(10), which prescribes the outer limitation for issuance of the adjudication order. The requirement that notice be issued at least three months before expiry of that limitation ensures adequate time for meaningful adjudication and prevents issuance of notice immediately before the limitation deadline. It does not prescribe a compulsory three-month gap between notice and adjudication where the notice was issued more than three months before the statutory deadline. A reasonable interval and reasonable opportunity to respond remain necessary under principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: Section 73(2) does not require a mandatory three-month interval between the show-cause notice and the adjudication order; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether two assessment orders for the same assessment period could proceed on mutually inconsistent bases regarding the exempt or taxable character of supplies.

Analysis: One order treated input tax credit as having been availed and utilised in respect of exempt supplies, whereas the other proceeded on the basis that the supplies were taxable and not exempt. These inconsistent factual and legal premises warranted fresh consideration, including examination of whether the supplies were exempt.

Conclusion: The contradictory assessment bases cannot stand and require reconsideration after reasonable opportunity; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessments require fresh, consistent adjudication upon fulfilment of the stipulated tax remittance condition.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice requirement linked to the statutory limitation for adjudication cannot be construed as imposing a separate fixed interval between the notice and the adjudication order, although reasonable opportunity to answer the notice must be afforded.

Issues: Whether the authority could reopen, review, recall or substantially modify a concluded order-in-appeal through a rectification-of-mistake order.

Analysis: The controversy was held to be directly covered by the binding coordinate-bench decision governing the validity of the impugned proceedings. Applying that decision, the impugned rectification order and the concluded appellate order could not stand.

Conclusion: The impugned rectification order and order-in-appeal were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Outcome: The application for condonation of delay and the Special Leave Petition were dismissed.

Issues: Whether an ex parte assessment and consequential proceedings could stand where statutory notices were sent to the email addresses of the assessee's former statutory auditor and the assessee was thereby unable to respond.

Analysis: The material showed that the assessee did not receive or respond to the notice for scrutiny, the notice seeking information, and the final show-cause notice because they were sent to the former statutory auditor's email addresses. The assessment was consequently completed without the assessee's reply or participation. A justice-oriented approach required that the assessee be afforded a further effective opportunity to contest the proceedings.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment and consequential demand and penalty proceedings were set aside in favour of the assessee, with fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the scrutiny notice after providing a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing.