Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
The case involves timeliness of appeal filed u/s 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994 before Commissioner (Appeals-II) and refund claim. The Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted appeal papers to Sevottam section, but factual position on receipt was unclear. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine merits, solely citing delay. Considering the acknowledgment of receipt, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay and remanding for detailed examination on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals-II).
The case involves timeliness of appeal filed u/s 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994 before Commissioner (Appeals-II) and refund claim. The Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted appeal papers to Sevottam section, but factual position on receipt was unclear. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine merits, solely citing delay. Considering the acknowledgment of receipt, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay and remanding for detailed examination on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals-II).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
