Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of notices u/s. 142(1) - , ‘blind faith’ in his local consultant - There has been no explanation as to why the consultant, after being apologetic of his consent, continued to behave in such an irresponsible manner, amounting to gross professional misconduct, which cannot be lightly inferred. The other reason stated for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals is the non-connectivity with the Revenue's e-portal, which could at best explain the delay by a few days. Under the circumstances, find no merit in the assessee's case qua penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) as well. - AT
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of notices u/s. 142(1) - , ‘blind faith’ in his local consultant - There has been no explanation as to why the consultant, after being apologetic of his consent, continued to behave in such an irresponsible manner, amounting to gross professional misconduct, which cannot be lightly inferred. The other reason stated for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals is the non-connectivity with the Revenue's e-portal, which could at best explain the delay by a few days. Under the circumstances, find no merit in the assessee's case qua penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) as well. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
