Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT condoned a 110-day delay in filing the first appeal, accepting the assessee's illiteracy, engagement in vegetable vending and unawareness of statutory notices as sufficient cause; it emphasized that substantial justice supersedes technical forfeiture. ITAT held that a forum lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits of an appeal unless the delay is first condoned; a prior refusal to admit time-barred appeal renders any merit adjudication invalid. Consequently, ITAT set aside the impugned order to the extent it addressed merits without jurisdiction, directed the CIT(A) to treat the appeal as duly admitted, and to adjudicate afresh on merits after granting the assessee an opportunity to present submissions.
ITAT condoned a 110-day delay in filing the first appeal, accepting the assessee's illiteracy, engagement in vegetable vending and unawareness of statutory notices as sufficient cause; it emphasized that substantial justice supersedes technical forfeiture. ITAT held that a forum lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits of an appeal unless the delay is first condoned; a prior refusal to admit time-barred appeal renders any merit adjudication invalid. Consequently, ITAT set aside the impugned order to the extent it addressed merits without jurisdiction, directed the CIT(A) to treat the appeal as duly admitted, and to adjudicate afresh on merits after granting the assessee an opportunity to present submissions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.