Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
ITAT determined the assessment order under s.153C r/w s.143(3) for AY 2016-17 was barred by limitation. The order dated 21.04.2021 exceeded the statutory deadline of 31.12.2020 by 111 days. Following the legal maxim 'Expressio unius est exclusion alteris', when statute prescribes a specific timeframe, compliance is mandatory and no alternative method is permissible. The assessment should have been completed within prescribed 9 months or 21 months period, whichever is later, per s.153B. Since AO failed to pass the order within statutory limitation period, the assessment was quashed and appellant's appeal was allowed on grounds of time-barred proceedings.
ITAT determined the assessment order under s.153C r/w s.143(3) for AY 2016-17 was barred by limitation. The order dated 21.04.2021 exceeded the statutory deadline of 31.12.2020 by 111 days. Following the legal maxim 'Expressio unius est exclusion alteris', when statute prescribes a specific timeframe, compliance is mandatory and no alternative method is permissible. The assessment should have been completed within prescribed 9 months or 21 months period, whichever is later, per s.153B. Since AO failed to pass the order within statutory limitation period, the assessment was quashed and appellant's appeal was allowed on grounds of time-barred proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.