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" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal by remand, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and condoning a 36-day delay. The Tribunal held the limitation for filing an appeal under s.128 must be computed from communication of a speaking order by the Assessing Officer, not merely from the date of provisional assessment of the bill of entry. As the Appellant had requested a speaking order and received no response, the appeal was within time. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a decision conforming to s.128A(4), and to make further enquiries, if necessary under s.128A(3), and dispose of the appeal within four months.
CESTAT allowed the appeal by remand, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and condoning a 36-day delay. The Tribunal held the limitation for filing an appeal under s.128 must be computed from communication of a speaking order by the Assessing Officer, not merely from the date of provisional assessment of the bill of entry. As the Appellant had requested a speaking order and received no response, the appeal was within time. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a decision conforming to s.128A(4), and to make further enquiries, if necessary under s.128A(3), and dispose of the appeal within four months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
