ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
The appeal is dismissed for default under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal found that service by RPAD upon the address furnished in the ST-5 form returned undelivered with an endorsement of "no such person/company," and there is no record of any address update with the Registry. Repeated adjournment requests were declined in light of the appellate court's prohibition of mechanical adjournments and the requirement of cogent substantiation for non-appearance. Having exhausted prescribed methods of service and being unable to ascertain the appellant's whereabouts or intent to prosecute the appeal, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for default and did not restore the matter.
The appeal is dismissed for default under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal found that service by RPAD upon the address furnished in the ST-5 form returned undelivered with an endorsement of "no such person/company," and there is no record of any address update with the Registry. Repeated adjournment requests were declined in light of the appellate court's prohibition of mechanical adjournments and the requirement of cogent substantiation for non-appearance. Having exhausted prescribed methods of service and being unable to ascertain the appellant's whereabouts or intent to prosecute the appeal, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for default and did not restore the matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
