Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that an application to produce additional evidence must be tested under rule 23 by asking whether the documents are needed to enable the Tribunal to pass orders or whether sufficient cause exists. The earlier rejection was defective because it relied only on late filing and absence of good reason, without applying the governing standard. As the documents related to the gold bars in dispute and could assist adjudication, the omission amounted to a mistake apparent from the record. The rejection order was recalled, the application for additional evidence was allowed, and the consequential final order was also recalled for fresh hearing of the appeal.
CESTAT held that an application to produce additional evidence must be tested under rule 23 by asking whether the documents are needed to enable the Tribunal to pass orders or whether sufficient cause exists. The earlier rejection was defective because it relied only on late filing and absence of good reason, without applying the governing standard. As the documents related to the gold bars in dispute and could assist adjudication, the omission amounted to a mistake apparent from the record. The rejection order was recalled, the application for additional evidence was allowed, and the consequential final order was also recalled for fresh hearing of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
