Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
NCLAT held that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance because counsel's absence on the relevant date was supported by the record and appeared genuine, even though an adjournment should have been sought earlier. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the appellant should be given an opportunity to contest the matter. The order rejecting restoration of the petition dismissed for non-prosecution was set aside, and the restoration application was revived and remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision after hearing both sides, including the defence regarding absence on 16.05.2025, in accordance with law.
NCLAT held that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance because counsel's absence on the relevant date was supported by the record and appeared genuine, even though an adjournment should have been sought earlier. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the appellant should be given an opportunity to contest the matter. The order rejecting restoration of the petition dismissed for non-prosecution was set aside, and the restoration application was revived and remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision after hearing both sides, including the defence regarding absence on 16.05.2025, in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.