Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that the intimation under section 143(1) issued on 30.03.2019 was invalid as it was passed before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day period provided to the assessee for submitting a response, which ended on 22.04.2019. The purported response date of 23.03.2019 was found to be incorrect and inconsistent with the record. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the intimation was bad in law for non-compliance with the statutory procedural requirement. As a result, the disallowance made by the AO pursuant to the impugned intimation was deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT held that the intimation under section 143(1) issued on 30.03.2019 was invalid as it was passed before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day period provided to the assessee for submitting a response, which ended on 22.04.2019. The purported response date of 23.03.2019 was found to be incorrect and inconsistent with the record. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the intimation was bad in law for non-compliance with the statutory procedural requirement. As a result, the disallowance made by the AO pursuant to the impugned intimation was deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
