Issues: (i) Whether the assessments initiated under Section 153C were valid despite the challenge to the satisfaction note, approval and reliance on subsequently received investigation material; (ii) Whether estimated commission income from alleged accommodation-entry transactions should be computed at 1.75% or 0.47%; (iii) Whether the addition for cash deposited from locker cash was sustainable; (iv) Whether the addition for the assessee's share of jewellery and foreign currency found in lockers was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the assessments initiated under Section 153C were valid despite the challenge to the satisfaction note, approval and reliance on subsequently received investigation material.

Analysis: The proceedings were initiated following seizure of incriminating documents in the searched person's case. The record established that approval under Section 153D had been obtained. The assertion that no satisfaction note existed was unsupported by cogent evidence. Once jurisdiction under Section 153C was validly assumed, material subsequently received from the investigation wing could also be considered in the assessment.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction under Section 153C was valid; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether estimated commission income from alleged accommodation-entry transactions should be computed at 1.75% or 0.47%.

Analysis: A coordinate bench's earlier order in the assessee's own case on materially similar transactions had determined the appropriate commission rate at 0.47%. Consistency required application of that rate to the aggregate transaction values adopted in the assessments.

Conclusion: Commission income shall be recomputed at 0.47% of the relevant aggregate transaction value; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition for cash deposited from locker cash was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee did not furnish a cogent explanation of the source of cash found in lockers. However, the material indicated that the assessee held only a 25% share, and the claim that the amount had already been assessed in an earlier year required verification.

Conclusion: The issue is restored to the appellate authority for fresh consideration after the assessee is afforded an opportunity to establish the source and its claim of prior assessment.

Issue (iv): Whether the addition for the assessee's share of jewellery and foreign currency found in lockers was sustainable.

Analysis: The jewellery and foreign currency were found in lockers held by the assessee's family, and the assessee's proportionate ownership was determined at one-fourth. The assessee failed to substantiate that the assets were acquired from disclosed sources.

Conclusion: The addition for the assessee's proportionate share of the unexplained assets is sustained; this issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessments remain jurisdictionally valid, while the accommodation-entry commission additions require recalculation at the consistent rate of 0.47%; the locker-cash addition requires fresh adjudication and the unexplained-assets addition remains sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Upon valid assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C, subsequently received relevant investigation material may be considered, and estimation of income on comparable facts must follow the consistently determined rate.

Issues: Whether the services supplied by the appellant to overseas group entities under the service agreements constituted intermediary services or export of services.

Analysis: Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 requires an intermediary to arrange or facilitate a main supply between two or more persons and to have the character of an agent, broker or similar person. The exclusion for a person supplying services on its own account restricts an expansive application of the definition. The Board clarification recognises that intermediary services require three parties and two distinct supplies, whereas a subcontractor or a supplier rendering the main service on a principal-to-principal basis is not an intermediary. The agreements prohibited the appellant from concluding or negotiating sales contracts and provided for remuneration based on actual costs plus a markup, without linkage to sales. The appellant rendered the contracted support, technical, manufacturing, administrative and related services on its own account; it neither negotiated sales nor merely brought customers and overseas entities together. Services rendered to third parties at the overseas recipient's behest remained services supplied to that recipient, which was contractually entitled to receive them and liable to pay for them.

Conclusion: The appellant was not an intermediary; the services qualified as export of services. The demand of service tax and the penalties were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether duty paid on supplementary invoices raising a price increase not accepted or paid by the buyer is refundable, and whether the bar of unjust enrichment applies.

Analysis: The assessable value is confined to the transaction value, namely the price actually paid or payable. Since the buyer neither accepted the proposed price revision nor became liable to pay the enhanced amount, that amount could not form part of the transaction value. The duty paid on the unaccepted enhancement was consequently an excess payment. The buyer's certification that it neither paid the supplementary invoice amounts nor availed Cenvat credit established that the incidence of duty had not been passed on, excluding unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The refund claim for duty paid on the unaccepted supplementary-invoice price enhancement is admissible, and unjust enrichment does not bar the refund.

Issues: Whether the confirmation of the provisional attachment order was sustainable when the Adjudicating Authority did not give reasoned findings on the appellant's material objections.

Analysis: Section 8(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires adjudication of the issues raised in opposition to attachment. Although the impugned order was detailed and reproduced the parties' pleadings, it did not address the material objections concerning the absence of a money trail, the alleged connection between the attached property and the proceeds of crime, and the claimed non-involvement of the appellant's deceased husband in the predicate conduct. The absence of reasons on these objections rendered the adjudication non-speaking.

Conclusion: The confirmation order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after dealing with every issue raised by the appellant.

Issues: Whether steel wire ropes drawn from iron wire rods, on which sales tax had already been suffered, could be separately subjected to tax at 12%.

Analysis: Steel wire ropes drawn from taxed iron wire rods are not a separate taxable commodity. The applicable single-point taxation regime for declared goods and the settled principle governing iron wires and ropes precluded a further levy. The assessment and appellate orders failed to apply this governing legal position.

Conclusion: The levy of tax at 12% on steel wire ropes was unsustainable and could not be maintained.

Outcome: Delay condoned; Special Leave Petition dismissed and interlocutory applications disposed of.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the intimation could be condoned; (ii) Whether foreign tax credit claimed and supported by Form No. 67 could be denied without verification.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the intimation could be condoned.

Analysis: The delay resulted from lack of awareness of the electronic procedure for filing Form No. 35 and of the availability of an appeal against the processing intimation. The appeal was filed upon obtaining professional advice. These circumstances constituted sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The delay was liable to be condoned, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether foreign tax credit claimed and supported by Form No. 67 could be denied without verification.

Analysis: Foreign tax credit was claimed in the return and Form No. 67 was stated to have been available before processing. The material included evidence of tax deducted in Tanzania, the corresponding foreign income, and the applicable double taxation avoidance arrangement. A lawful credit cannot be denied merely on a technical basis where its eligibility requires verification.

Conclusion: The foreign tax credit claim must be verified and granted if found allowable in accordance with law, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The foreign tax credit claim was restored for verification on merits after condoning the filing delay.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxpayer who establishes sufficient cause for delayed electronic filing of an appeal cannot be denied examination of a foreign tax credit claim on merits; a substantiated credit must be granted if legally allowable after verification.

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 recovery notices for GST dues of a deceased proprietor could be issued against a private limited company distinct from the proprietary concern; (ii) Whether adjudication orders against the deceased proprietor's legal heirs could stand without examining the applicability of statutory liability under Section 93(1)(a) or Section 93(1)(b).

Issue (i): Whether recovery notices for GST dues of a deceased proprietor could be issued against a private limited company distinct from the proprietary concern.

Analysis: The private limited company was undisputedly a separate and distinct entity from the proprietary concern of the deceased registered taxable person. Its bank account could not be attached for liabilities of that proprietary concern merely through recovery proceedings.

Conclusion: The recovery notices issued against the private limited company were unsustainable and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether adjudication orders against the deceased proprietor's legal heirs could stand without examining the applicability of statutory liability under Section 93(1)(a) or Section 93(1)(b).

Analysis: Section 93 of the CGST/KGST enactments governs the circumstances in which tax liabilities of a deceased taxable person may be recovered from legal representatives or from the estate. The adjudication orders did not examine whether proceedings were sustainable under either Section 93(1)(a) or Section 93(1)(b), despite the death of the proprietor and the legal heirs' assertion that they had not continued the business and that no estate was available. This omission amounted to failure to consider material circumstances. The objection concerning separate show-cause notices for the same tax period was left open for determination after a detailed response.

Conclusion: The adjudication orders and summaries were quashed and the proceedings were restored for fresh consideration after permitting the legal heirs to respond, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: GST recovery must be directed against the legally liable person or estate, and adjudication following the death of a taxable person requires a determination of liability under the statutory framework governing legal representatives.

Ratio Decidendi: A distinct incorporated entity cannot be subjected to recovery for GST liabilities of a deceased proprietor, and an adjudication against legal heirs is unsustainable where the statutory basis for their liability or that of the deceased's estate has not been examined.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment for AY 2009-10 could be initiated under Section 153C when it fell outside the permissible six-year block period; (ii) Whether assessments for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 could be framed under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C; (iii) Whether an addition in the completed assessment for AY 2013-14 could survive without incriminating material; (iv) Whether the consolidated satisfaction note, absence of identified seized material, and consolidated approval under Section 153D validly conferred jurisdiction under Section 153C.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment for AY 2009-10 could be initiated under Section 153C when it fell outside the permissible six-year block period.

Analysis: Satisfaction and notice under Section 153C were recorded and issued on 23.02.2016, making AY 2016-17 the deemed search year. The six preceding assessment years were AYs 2010-11 to 2015-16. The extended ten-year period was inapplicable because both the actual search and deemed search pre-dated the applicable cut-off.

Conclusion: The Section 153C notice and assessment for AY 2009-10 were without jurisdiction and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether assessments for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 could be framed under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C.

Analysis: AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 fell within the six assessment years preceding the deemed search year. Since the assessments were based on documents found in the group search, the mandatory assessment procedure was under Section 153C upon issuance of notice under that provision, rather than ordinary assessment under Section 143(3).

Conclusion: The assessments for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 framed under Section 143(3) were invalid and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether an addition in the completed assessment for AY 2013-14 could survive without incriminating material.

Analysis: The time for issuing notice under Section 143(2) for AY 2013-14 had expired before the deemed search date, making that year an unabated assessment. The addition, based on substituting the project completion method with the percentage completion method and estimating income at 20% of advances, was admittedly not founded on incriminating material.

Conclusion: The addition for AY 2013-14 could not be sustained in the absence of incriminating material and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the consolidated satisfaction note, absence of identified seized material, and consolidated approval under Section 153D validly conferred jurisdiction under Section 153C.

Analysis: A single satisfaction note was recorded for multiple assessment years without separate year-specific satisfaction or identification of material linked to each year. The note rested on surrender letters and did not identify seized material belonging or pertaining to the assessee having a bearing on determination of income. The consolidated approval under Section 153D similarly disclosed no consideration of year-wise issues, relevant seized material, or draft assessments, demonstrating non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction assumed under Section 153C and the Section 153D approval were invalid; the consequential proceedings and assessments were void, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional defects affecting the search-related proceedings invalidated the assessments for all the assessment years concerned, and the impugned additions could not be sustained.

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.