Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Validity of assessment proceedings under faceless assessment...
Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural unfairness.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Validity of assessment proceedings under faceless assessment rules is challenged where a jurisdictional assessing officer intervened during remand, causing procedural irregularity and violation of principles of natural justice; the intervention by the jurisdictional AO was unnecessary and rendered the hearing futile, and a one-day opportunity to reply was held inadequate, resulting in quashing of the impugned assessment order dated 10.12.2024. The decision underscores that remand directions must be adhered to, that change of AO mid-proceedings can vitiate the process if it breaches procedural fairness, and that adequate opportunity to be heard is mandatory.
Validity of assessment proceedings under faceless assessment rules is challenged where a jurisdictional assessing officer intervened during remand, causing procedural irregularity and violation of principles of natural justice; the intervention by the jurisdictional AO was unnecessary and rendered the hearing futile, and a one-day opportunity to reply was held inadequate, resulting in quashing of the impugned assessment order dated 10.12.2024. The decision underscores that remand directions must be adhered to, that change of AO mid-proceedings can vitiate the process if it breaches procedural fairness, and that adequate opportunity to be heard is mandatory.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.