Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
