Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The ITAT held that the assessment framed by the ITO-2(1), Raipur under section 143(3) was without valid jurisdiction as no valid transfer order under section 127 was passed by the competent authority. The notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO-1(1), Raipur, creating ambiguity and denying the assessee a fair opportunity to defend. The Tribunal emphasized that any ambiguity in hearing notices preventing effective defense renders the proceedings arbitrary and invalid. Consequently, the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 was quashed for lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with statutory requirements. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that the assessment framed by the ITO-2(1), Raipur under section 143(3) was without valid jurisdiction as no valid transfer order under section 127 was passed by the competent authority. The notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO-1(1), Raipur, creating ambiguity and denying the assessee a fair opportunity to defend. The Tribunal emphasized that any ambiguity in hearing notices preventing effective defense renders the proceedings arbitrary and invalid. Consequently, the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 was quashed for lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with statutory requirements. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
