Issues: Whether addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for unexplained investment in immovable property is justified where the assessee explains the source of funds as contributions from the deceased spouse supported by bank statements, sale deed and related documentary evidence.

Analysis: The assessment was reopened under Section 147 and an addition under Section 69 was made treating 50% of the aggregate purchase consideration as unexplained investment attributable to the assessee. On record are the sale deed showing joint ownership, a schedule of payments in the sale deed, detailed payment entries and bank statements demonstrating transfers from the husband's fixed deposits, transfers from a mutual fund and credits into the joint account; the husband had died before assessment proceedings and his tax returns and death certificate were also placed on record. The departmental authorities did not identify any alternate source of income of the assessee and the documentary trail establishes that payments were routed through banking channels and reconciled with account entries. The first appellate authority sustained the addition without independent factual scrutiny of these documents.

Conclusion: Addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 deleted; appeal allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings and notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were validly initiated on the basis of information and materials seized by GST/Central Excise authorities; (ii) Whether addition of Rs. 39,42,558/- as job work charges by applying 4% on the seized jewellery valuation was sustainable; (iii) Whether the valuation of jewellery as determined by CGST/Central Excise authorities and adopted in assessment is rightly assessable in the hands of the assessee and whether application of a fixed assumed job work rate was permissible.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are validly initiated on the material received from CGST/Central Excise authorities and statements recorded during their proceedings.

Analysis: The reopening was based on seized printouts and a statement recorded during GST search proceedings together with information received from Regional Economic Intelligence Council and communication from Joint Commissioner, GST and Excise. The factual record shows that seized material and the statement indicated manufacture of additional jewellery not reflected in books. Retraction of a statement was not supported by evidence of coercion or threat. Precedent permits reopening where prima facie material forming a reason to believe is available to the assessing authority; adequacy or sufficiency of such material is for the assessing stage and not for striking down the reason to believe.

Conclusion: Reassessment under section 147 and notice under section 148 are valid; issue decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of Rs. 39,42,558/- computed as 4% of the jewellery valuation as unexplained job work charges is sustainable.

Analysis: The Assessing Officer applied a market-average approach, noting industry making charges between 4% and 12% and adopting the lower 4% rate on account of diamond content. The assessee's contention that job work charges are based on gold weight and recorded in books was not supported by rejection of books under section 145 or by positive evidence showing all receipts were accounted for. The authorities' choice of a conservative lower-end percentage falls within a reasonable exercise of estimation in presence of seized valuation.

Conclusion: Addition of Rs. 39,42,558/- computed at 4% is upheld; issue decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether valuation of jewellery determined by CGST/Central Excise authorities and adopted by income-tax authorities is correctly attributed to the assessee and whether applying a uniform job work rate on that valuation was appropriate.

Analysis: The valuation figures were produced by CGST/Central Excise authorities based on seizure and were communicated to the assessing authority. The assessee did not produce specific discrepancies in those valuations nor identify third-party ownership of the seized jewellery. No person claimed ownership. Given verified valuation by revenue authorities and lack of counter-evidence, adoption of that valuation for assessment purposes and application of a conservative job work percentage were reasonable.

Conclusion: Valuation adopted from GST/Central Excise authorities stands and application of a fixed conservative job work rate is upheld; issue decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed and the assessments/reassessments for the relevant assessment years stand confirmed, resulting in the appeals being decided in favour of the revenue on the contested issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where assessing authorities receive seized material and corroborative communications from GST/Central Excise authorities indicating undisclosed manufacture or possession, such material can furnish a reason to believe for reopening under section 147; in absence of specific rebuttal of seized valuation or evidence of coercion in statements, a conservative industry-based percentage applied to adopted valuation for computing additions is a permissible estimate.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment for AY 2012-13 under section 147/148 is time-barred and the reassessment order dated 21.04.2023 should be quashed; (ii) Whether initiation of reassessment under section 147/148 for the other assessment years is valid; (iii) Proper rate to estimate profit element on undisclosed "on money" receipts for the RK group projects; (iv) Validity and adjudication of additions based on negative/peak cash balances and unexplained money under section 69A and related deletions or confirmations; (v) Validity of addition of Rs. 28,87,490 as short term capital gain on sale of Munjka land; (vi) Deletion of protective additions where substantive additions have been sustained.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment for AY 2012-13 is barred by limitation and the reassessment order must be quashed.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the statutory scheme for computation of the ten year block in search linked assessments (referencing section 149 and Explanation to section 153A), and followed the binding Gujarat High Court authority holding that the ten year block runs from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted; on the facts search fell in FY 2021 22 making AY 2022 23 the first year and AY 2013 14 the tenth year, thus AY 2012 13 fell outside the ten year window.

Conclusion: The reassessment for AY 2012 13 under section 147/148 is time barred and the reassessment order is quashed (appeal of assessee allowed; revenue cross appeal dismissed for AY 2012 13).

Issue (ii): Validity of reassessment initiation under section 147/148 for the other assessment years of the RK group matters.

Analysis: For the remaining years the Tribunal followed coordinate bench precedents and statutory provisions applicable to search linked reassessments (post search regime), holding initiation valid where applicable conditions and deemed satisfaction arising from search/requisite material were met.

Conclusion: The challenges to initiation of reassessment for the other specified assessment years are dismissed (assessee appeals on initiation grounds dismissed for those years).

Issue (iii): Appropriate uniform rate for estimating profit element on undisclosed "on money" receipts.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined relevant authorities (including jurisdictional High Court and coordinate bench ITAT decisions), considered the seized material, past audited profit margins and project specific factors, and held that only the profit element embedded in on money is taxable. Balancing precedents and factual matrix of RK group projects, the Tribunal rejected higher percentages adopted below and fixed a uniform reasonable rate based on facts.

Conclusion: Profit element on undisclosed on money receipts is to be estimated at 10% for the matters before the Tribunal (assessee partly successful on these grounds; several appeals partly allowed to apply 10% uniform rate; revenue appeals against reductions dismissed as indicated).

Issue (iv): Additions based on negative/peak cash balances and unexplained money under section 69A - whether to confirm, delete or remit.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the assessing officer and CIT(A) findings, coordinate bench authorities on telescoping and corroboration, and noted instances where CIT(A) remitted certain negative cash balance computations for verification while in other items (e.g., additions deleted by CIT(A) with telescoping benefit) the Tribunal followed the coordinate bench precedents upholding deletion where substantive additions had been confirmed elsewhere.

Conclusion: Where CIT(A) had remitted issues for verification the remittal is sustained (assessee grounds dismissed in those respects); where CIT(A) deleted additions by applying telescoping or on substantive assessment grounds, the Tribunal upheld deletion and dismissed revenue appeals as listed.

Issue (v): Legitimacy of addition of Rs. 28,87,490 as undisclosed short term capital gain on sale of Munjka land.

Analysis: The Tribunal found the seized Miracle ledger entries corroborated by bank records and conveyance documentation; discrepancies in cash receipts/payments matched seized data and supported the AO's computation of undisclosed cash element in the Munjka transaction.

Conclusion: Addition of Rs. 28,87,490 as undisclosed short term capital gain is sustained and the assessee's ground against this addition is dismissed.

Issue (vi): Whether protective additions must be deleted once substantive additions have been sustained in the hands of the correct person.

Analysis: Applying settled doctrine and authority that the same income cannot be taxed twice, the Tribunal accepted CIT(A)'s approach of identifying the real owner and deleting protective additions where substantive assessment was confirmed in that person's hands, and relied on coordinate authorities on telescoping and deletion of protective additions.

Conclusion: Protective additions deleted where substantive additions were confirmed in the hands of the real assessee; corresponding revenue grounds dismissed as listed.

Final Conclusion: The consolidated result is that the assessee's appeal for AY 2012 13 is allowed (reassessment quashed); for multiple other assessment year grounds the Tribunal partly allowed assessee relief by reducing/standardising estimation of profit on on money to 10% and upheld or remitted certain issues as indicated; all revenue appeals challenging those outcomes are dismissed as specified. The net practical effect is a partial success for the assessee across the consolidated matters and dismissal of the revenue appeals enumerated in the order.

Ratio Decidendi: In search linked reassessments the ten year limitation is computed from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted; only the profit element embedded in undisclosed on money receipts is taxable and the rate of such estimation must be fixed on a reasonable factual basis (here 10%), and protective additions must be deleted once substantive assessment in the hands of the correct assessee is sustained.

Issues: (i) Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Correctness of estimation of profit element on alleged unaccounted "on-money" (rate of profit adopted); (iii) Year of assessment for taxing estimated unaccounted profit - year of receipt v. year of execution of sale deed/recognition; (iv) Deletion of addition treated as unexplained expenses under section 69C read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied binding coordinate-bench precedent concerning search-based reassessments and considered the statutory scheme as amended for searches after 01.04.2021, including deemed satisfaction for relevant years; the reassessment notices were issued with required approval under section 151 and followed procedure including supply of seized material and opportunities under section 142/143.

Conclusion: Reassessment proceedings under section 147/notice under section 148 are valid and the assessee's grounds challenging initiation are dismissed.

Issue (ii): Correctness of estimation of profit element on alleged unaccounted "on-money" (rate of profit adopted).

Analysis: The Tribunal examined seized project-specific data, compared precedent authorities on taxing only the profit element in unaccounted receipts, and followed a binding coordinate-bench decision which evaluated comparable projects and held that a reduced profit rate is appropriate based on facts, book profits and established judicial ranges rather than the assessing officer's higher benchmark.

Conclusion: Estimated profit on "on-money" is adjusted downward in part; the assessee appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated (profit estimation reduced as per the coordinate-bench direction).

Issue (iii): Year of assessment for taxing estimated unaccounted profit - year of receipt v. year of execution of sale deed/recognition.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered accounting recognition methods, applicability of ICDS-III, and precedents holding that for developers following project completion/sale-deed recognition, unaccounted profit on on-money is to be taxed in the year of execution/transfer when significant risks and rewards pass; ICDS-III was held not applicable to the contractee in this matter.

Conclusion: Unaccounted profit is taxable in the year in which sale deed is executed (year of recognition followed by the assessee); the revenue's grounds on this point are dismissed.

Issue (iv): Deletion of addition of Rs.10,47,22,650 treated as unexplained expenses under section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the coordinate-bench authority which addressed telescoping and confirmed that where estimated unaccounted profit covers the amount sought to be taxed as unexplained advances/expenses, telescoping benefit is available and deletion by the appellate authority is sustainable.

Conclusion: Deletion of the addition under section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE is upheld and the revenue's ground is dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed to the extent of adjustment in estimation of profit on unaccounted "on-money" and related deletions as indicated, while the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed; the overall effect is a partial favourable outcome for the assessee consistent with binding coordinate-bench precedents.

Ratio Decidendi: In search-based reassessments, where reliable seized material shows unaccounted receipts and related unaccounted expenditures, only the profit element embedded in such receipts may be taxed (not full receipts); estimation of that profit must be founded on project-specific data and relevant precedents, and revenue recognition for developers following project-completion/sale-deed method is in the year of execution of sale deed.

Issues: Whether remuneration recovered for transportation of goods by a goods transport agency, separately stated under the same agreement, must be included in the assessable value of clearing and forwarding agent services for service tax levy.

Analysis: The agreements specified separate charges for clearing and forwarding services and for goods transportation. Transportation activity fulfilled requirements of GTA services including issuance of serial numbered goods receipts/consignment notes and reverse charge payment by corporate recipients as per Rule 2(1)(d)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Prior authoritative decisions established that where distinct services are separately indicated with separate remuneration and where tax on GTA services is discharged by the recipient under reverse charge, transportation charges are not to be clubbed with clearing and forwarding agent services to avoid double taxation. Administrative instructions and CBEC guidance further support prevention of double charging where tax on transportation is payable by the recipient. Applying these legal principles and precedent to the facts - separate rates, issuance of consignment notes, and tax paid by recipients under reverse charge - leads to the conclusion that transportation remuneration is classifiable as GTA service and not includible in the value of clearing and forwarding services.

Conclusion: Transportation remuneration stated separately under the same agreement is not includible in the assessable value of clearing and forwarding agent services; the impugned demand is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where agreements separately specify charges for transportation and GTA service formalities (such as consignment notes) are complied with and tax on GTA is paid by the recipient under reverse charge, transportation charges cannot be aggregated into the value of clearing and forwarding services for service tax purposes as that would result in impermissible double taxation.

Issues: Whether an appellate order rejecting an appeal solely on the ground that it was not filed electronically under Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is valid where the appellant paid the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the appeal was accepted without objection, notices were issued and the matter was heard on merits.

Analysis: The appeal was filed manually after payment of the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was acknowledged and processed by the appellate authority without initial objection to the mode of filing. Notices for personal hearing were issued and the appeal was heard on merits. The appellate order was passed more than a year after filing and dismissed the appeal solely because it was not filed electronically under Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Given that the appellate authority had accepted the appeal for processing and conducted a hearing, raising a technical objection regarding the mode of filing at that late stage amounted to a procedural irregularity and amounted to waiver by conduct. In these circumstances the appropriate remedy is to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter for fresh decision on merits without regard to the manner of filing.

Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting the appeal for not being filed electronically is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits without reference to the mode of filing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate authority accepts and processes an appeal including issuing notices and hearing it on merits after the appellant has paid the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 a subsequent dismissal solely for not having been filed electronically under Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is impermissible and the matter must be decided on merits.

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit attributable to service tax paid under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme could be denied refund merely because the underlying tax dues were paid under that scheme.

Analysis: The eligibility to avail and refund Cenvat credit was held to be governed by the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and not displaced by the refund bar in Section 109 of the Finance Act, 2013, because the claim was not for refund of the tax dues paid under the scheme but for refund of credit that had lawfully accrued after such payment. The departmental clarification in the CBEC circular and FAQs was treated as binding on the departmental authorities, and it clarified that admissibility of credit had to be examined under the Cenvat Credit Rules. Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was applied to export services, and the earlier view taken in the appellant's own case and in the cited precedent was followed for consistency.

Conclusion: The denial of refund of the unutilised Cenvat credit was unsustainable and the refund was held admissible in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the ex-parte appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without affording effective opportunity of hearing should be set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication so that the assessee can substantiate claims of housing loan (section 69A) and interest expenditure disallowed under assessment completed u/s 143(3) for A.Y. 2020-21.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the facts that electronic notices issued in the faceless appellate regime were not responded to by the assessee due to asserted illiteracy and unfamiliarity with digital communication. The Tribunal balanced the need for procedural discipline against the constitutional and statutory principle of the right to be heard and the judicial principle that substantial justice should prevail over mere technical lapses. Considering the assessee's plausible explanation for absence of documentary proof at earlier stages and the materiality of the disputed amounts (alleged housing loan of Rs.1.75 crore and interest expenditure of Rs.12,79,748), the Tribunal found that merits ought to be examined rather than permitting a final adjudication to rest on non-receipt of electronic notices, provided there is no mala fides. The Tribunal therefore directed verification of loan sanction letters, bank certificates and interest certificates and granted the assessee a final reasonable opportunity to produce evidence, warning that further non-cooperation may attract adverse inference.

Conclusion: The appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits with directions to verify the housing loan documents and interest certificates and to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to produce documentary evidence; the relief is granted in favour of the assessee (allowed for statistical purposes).

Issues: Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) committed any error in law or fact requiring interference by this Court.

Analysis: The Court examined whether the decision of CESTAT involved a reversible error of law or fact. The bench found that the appellate tribunal's conclusions were supported by the record and did not exhibit any misapprehension of law or material misappreciation of evidence that would warrant intervention under the standards applicable to appellate review of revenue matters.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that CESTAT did not commit any error in law or fact and that no interference is warranted; the appeals are dismissed in favour of the respondent.

Issues: Whether the assessee trust's objects/activities render it ineligible under Section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and whether the trust's expenditure on religious activities exceeds the statutory limit under Section 80G(5B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) rejected the Form 10AB application solely on the basis of object no.8 of the trust deed, treating the trust as a religious-cum-charitable (composite) trust. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Exemption) did not record any specific finding on whether the assessee's actual expenditure on religious activities exceeded the 5% threshold prescribed by Section 80G(5B). The statutory scheme permits expenditure up to the prescribed limit; therefore the relevant factual enquiry is whether the trust surpassed that statutory ceiling. The Tribunal directed that the limited factual question of quantification of religious expenditure be examined afresh by the CIT(Exemption) and the application reconsidered in accordance with law, with the assessee complying with notices and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

Conclusion: The matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) for a limited reconsideration to determine whether the assessee's expenditure on religious activities exceeds the 5% limit under Section 80G(5B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; appeal allowed for statistical purposes and directed reconsideration accordingly in favour of the assessee's entitlement to such examination.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 56,60,500/- made under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based solely on an unsigned Excel sheet recovered from a third party and related post-search material, is sustainable in the absence of independent corroborative evidence and where statements/records were not fully furnished for cross-examination.

Analysis: The disputed addition rested entirely on an unsigned Excel sheet seized from a third party which did not bear the assessee's name or signature and contained no direct acknowledgement of cash payment by the assessee. There was no independent documentary or testimonial evidence such as bank withdrawals, receipts, confirmations of cash receipt, or other material linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment. The evidence relied upon included third-party admissions and search statements that were not furnished in full to the assessee nor was an opportunity of cross-examination provided. Precedential authorities addressing identical facts arising from the same search action were considered, holding that mere entries in an unsigned third-party Excel sheet without corroboration cannot by themselves establish payment by the assessee. The balance of probabilities and requirement of positive evidence to fasten liability on a taxpayer were applied to the material on record.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 56,60,500/- under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable and is deleted; the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal should be condoned and the appeal admitted; (ii) Whether the notice for assessment under section 143(2) was time barred and the consequent assessment void; (iii) Whether non-receipt/non-service of notice rendered the assessment void ab initio.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal of 127 days is liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The assessee explained non-receipt of the appellate order and filed a condonation petition supported by facts showing discovery of the order during routine portal inspection and prompt filing thereafter. The respondent did not controvert these factual contentions. The Tribunal examined the explanation for delay and found it reasonable in the circumstances.

Conclusion: Delay condoned and the appeal admitted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice under section 143(2) was time barred because the revised/rectified return filed at the instance of CPC cannot extend the period for issuance of the notice.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated the rectified/revised return as having relation back to the date of the original return filed within the due date. Relying on the legal principle that a revised or rectified return filed to cure defects steps into the shoes of the original return, the period for issuing a notice under 143(2) runs from the end of the financial year in which the original return was furnished. The notice in question was issued beyond that limitation period.

Conclusion: The notice was time barred and therefore invalid; the assessment based on that notice is void in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether absence of service/non-receipt of the notice under section 143(2) independently renders the assessment void ab initio.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled requirement that a notice under section 143(2) must be served before making an assessment. The record showed no valid service of the impugned notice within the limitation period and factual reasons were found for non-receipt due to change of registered office and name/email details. The Tribunal referred to controlling precedent that assessment without valid service of the notice is liable to be quashed.

Conclusion: The assessment is invalid for want of valid service of the notice and is void ab initio in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the assessment framed under section 144 is quashed on grounds of time-bar and invalid service of the notice and the matter stands decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A revised or rectified return filed to cure defects relates back to the date of the original return for the purpose of computing the limitation for issuance of a notice under section 143(2), and an assessment framed without serving a valid notice under section 143(2) is void ab initio.

Issues: Whether the impugned order dated 11th September, 2025 passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer is vitiated by a breach of the principles of natural justice for failing to consider the petitioner's replies and for not giving adequate time to collate material in respect of newly proposed comparables under Section 92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Transfer Pricing Officer issued a show cause notice proposing new comparables under Section 92C(3). The petitioner furnished a partial reply and sought time to collate additional material relevant to the newly proposed comparables. The petitioner subsequently filed material for the "ITes" sector and later provided materials for the "IT" sector, but the impugned order was passed without referring to or considering the reply filed on 8th September, 2025 or affording adequate opportunity to supply and have considered the additional information. The factual sequence shows that the petitioner's submissions and collated material were not given consideration before passing the assessment-related order, resulting in a denial of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion: The impugned order is set aside on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice. The matter is remanded to the Transfer Pricing Officer to examine the issue afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice dated 18th August, 2025, and pass a fresh order within three months.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment-related order passed without giving adequate time to collate and consider material filed in response to a show cause notice proposing new comparables under Section 92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, constitutes a breach of the principles of natural justice and vitiates the order, requiring remand for fresh consideration.

Issues: (i) Whether the Orders in Original raising service tax demand based solely on information from income tax returns should be set aside and the matters remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice for fresh consideration; (ii) Whether bank attachment/debit freeze effected pursuant to the impugned orders should cease to have effect.

Issue (i): Whether the Orders in Original based on income tax return inputs must be set aside and the matters relegated to the stage of reply to the show cause notice for fresh adjudication in accordance with specified considerations.

Analysis: The orders of adjudication under challenge record that demand for service tax was raised on the basis of declarations in income tax returns. Reference is made to prior writ proceedings disposing similar challenges by remitting matters to the stage of reply to the show cause notice with directions to consider specified questions including applicability of Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, whether services fall under the negative list, applicability of Notification No.25/2012 ST dated 28.06.2012 or other exemptions, liability under the relevant rule read with applicable notifications, and limitation. The orders in appeal are procedural dismissals for non compliance of pre deposit and do not foreclose reconsideration of the adjudication on merits once the Orders in Original are set aside and matter remitted. Petitioners are permitted to file fresh replies and the authorities are directed to reconsider from the show cause notice stage keeping the specified considerations in mind; all contentions are kept open.

Conclusion: Orders in Original are set aside and the matters are remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice for fresh consideration in light of the specified observations, with all contentions kept open.

Issue (ii): Whether bank attachment/debit freeze effected pursuant to the impugned Orders in Original must be withdrawn following setting aside of those orders.

Analysis: The impugned Orders in Original have been set aside and the matters remitted for fresh adjudication; consequentially, attachments or debit freezes effected under those orders are no longer sustainable. The authorities are directed to issue instructions withdrawing the debit freeze/attachment in respect of the specified bank accounts upon receipt of certified copies.

Conclusion: Bank attachment/debit freeze effected pursuant to the impugned Orders in Original shall cease to have effect and the respondent authorities shall issue immediate instructions to withdraw such attachments upon receipt of certified copies.

Final Conclusion: The Orders in Original are set aside and the matters are remitted to the adjudicating authorities to be reconsidered from the stage of reply to the show cause notice in accordance with the observations specified; consequential attachments are to be withdrawn and petitioners are permitted to file fresh replies and pursue further remedies if aggrieved.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service tax demand is founded solely on information from income tax returns, the proper course is to set aside the Orders in Original and remit the matter to the stage of reply to the show cause notice for fresh adjudication, requiring the authorities to examine applicability of Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, negative list and exemption notifications (including Notification No.25/2012 ST dated 28.06.2012), liability under the relevant rule read with notifications, and limitation, with all contentions left open.

Issues: Whether the assessment order dated 04.12.2025 passed under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, together with the consequential demand notice dated 04.12.2025 under Section 156, is vitiated by denial of opportunity to file reply and denial of personal hearing as directed by the appellate authority.

Analysis: The remand by the appellate authority required fresh assessment after affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Proceedings were conducted under the faceless assessment framework invoking Section 144B and Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and notices under Section 142(1) were issued seeking explanations. The record shows that the assessee was unable to e-file her reply due to portal closure, lodged a grievance which was not remedied, and was not offered personal hearing before the impugned order was passed. Failure to provide the statutory and remand-directed opportunity to file a reply and to be heard engages the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment process unfair and procedurally infirm.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025 and the demand notice dated 04.12.2025 are set aside; the assessee is permitted to file her reply to the show cause notice and shall be afforded opportunity of hearing before fresh assessment is completed; writ petition allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the application for quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance order and criminal proceedings should be entertained on the basis of the plea that cash payment of more than Rs. 2,00,000/- attracts the statutory mechanism under the Income-tax law.

Outcome: Notice was issued to the opposite party for filing counter affidavit, and the matter was directed to be listed on a later date with instructions to be obtained.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is imposable for expiry of an e-way bill in respect of exported (zero-rated) goods where no tax is payable and the e-way bill could not be extended due to conveyance breakdown; and whether the impugned orders imposing and upholding the penalty should be quashed and the amount refunded with interest.

Analysis: The issue concerns the application of the GST scheme to interstate supplies that are zero rated by virtue of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the CGST Rules, 2017, including the availability of refund or adjustment under Rule 89 and Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and the relevant provisions of the IGST Act (Sections 5(1), 7(5), 16(1) and 17(1)). Rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 permits limited extension of an e-way bill; factual findings show the e-way bill expired and the vehicle was intercepted shortly thereafter and that extension was not possible due to breakdown. Section 129 provides for levy of penalty for contraventions, but where the supply is zero rated and no tax is payable, computation and imposition of a harsh penalty under Section 129(3) is inconsistent with the statutory scheme. Prior decisions applying these legal principles treat procedural contraventions in contexts where no tax is payable as requiring moderation of penalty, and permit relief including reduction or quashing of penalty and direction for refund where appropriate.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(a) and the subsequent order upholding it are quashed. The respondent orders dated 29.11.2025 and 02.12.2025 are set aside and the amount of Rs. 18,00,140/- shall be refunded with applicable interest within twelve weeks. Relief is therefore in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the order dated 20.01.2005 dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for additional interest under Section 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd.

Analysis: The Court examined the impugned order rejecting the rectification application for additional interest and considered that the order was founded on a High Court decision which has since been reversed by the Supreme Court. The Court directed that on remand the competent authority shall pass a fresh order within three months after receipt of a certified/web copy of this order. While recalculating interest the competent authority or Assessing Officer must apply the extant legal provisions, including the applicable rate of interest from time to time. For the assessment year in question, the Court provided an operable timeline and specified a contingency interest rate if compliance is delayed.

Conclusion: The impugned order dated 20.01.2005 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the competent authority for fresh disposal in favour of the assessee; the competent authority is directed to pass a fresh order within three months and to take into account applicable provisions and rates while calculating interest; in case of non-compliance the order shall carry interest as directed by the Court.

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue should be entertained despite a gross unexplained delay of 236 days; (ii) Whether the appeals merit interference on merits with the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 13-03-2025.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals should be admitted notwithstanding a gross unexplained delay of 236 days by the appellant.

Analysis: The appeals were filed with a delay of 236 days and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The legal framework requires a satisfactory explanation to condone delay before an appeal is admitted; unexplained or inadequately explained delay militates against exercise of appellate discretion to entertain the appeal. The Court addressed whether the explanation furnished met that requirement and found it lacking.

Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay; condonation is refused.

Issue (ii): Whether, apart from delay, interference with the Tribunal's common impugned order dated 13-03-2025 is warranted on merits.

Analysis: The Court examined whether there were substantive grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order. After consideration, no sufficient ground was found to disturb the Tribunal's conclusions; the appeals do not demonstrate merit warranting interference with the impugned order.

Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed on merits; no interference with the impugned order is warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are finally dismissed both for failure to satisfactorily explain the delay and for lack of merit, and pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellant seeks admission of a delayed appeal, a satisfactory explanation for delay is essential and absence thereof justifies dismissal; additionally, absent substantive defect in the Tribunal's order, appellate interference is not warranted.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was eligible for concessional CVD under Clause 1C of Notification No. 04/2006-CE; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation; (iii) Whether penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was eligible for concessional CVD under Clause 1C of Notification No. 04/2006-CE.

Analysis: Eligibility under Clause 1C depended on satisfaction of the statutory condition of direct purchase from the manufacturer, as required by Rule 2A(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2006. The appellant had purchased the goods through High Sea Sale transactions, which severed the direct contractual nexus with the manufacturer. Exemption notifications are to be strictly construed, and the condition attached to the concession could not be treated as a mere procedural formality. The nature of end-use for government construction did not cure the failure to meet the mandatory purchase condition.

Conclusion: The appellant was not eligible for concessional CVD under Clause 1C, and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The imports were made between March 2009 and September 2011, while the show cause notice was issued on 14.03.2014, beyond the normal limitation period under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The record showed disclosure of the High Sea Sale basis, the relevant documents, and the exemption claim at the time of assessment. The dispute was one of interpretation of the notification and not one involving concealment of material facts. In the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression, the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 114A depends on a duty demand validly sustained under Section 28(4) on account of wilful misstatement or suppression. Once the extended period was held inapplicable and the demand failed on limitation, the foundation for penalty disappeared. The case was also essentially interpretational, with full disclosure of primary facts, which did not justify mandatory equal penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 114A was not sustainable and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the duty demand could not be sustained beyond limitation, and the consequential interest and penalty also fell with the demand, notwithstanding the finding that the concessional notification condition was not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand founded on alleged misinterpretation of an exemption notification cannot be sustained under the extended limitation period in the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression of material facts, especially where the primary transaction details were disclosed at assessment.