Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2841 to 2860 of 95916 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Service of the Order-in-Original was proved by clear acknowledgement dated 07.02.2023, and the appellant's production of the signed order itself undermined the claim of late receipt. On that factual basis, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.01.2025 was held to be far beyond the normal and statutorily condonable period. Applying Singh Enterprises, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals), as a creature of statute, had no power to condone delay beyond the period expressly permitted by law. The plea on delayed service failed, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred without examination of the merits.
Service of the Order-in-Original was proved by clear acknowledgement dated 07.02.2023, and the appellant's production of the signed order itself undermined the claim of late receipt. On that factual basis, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.01.2025 was held to be far beyond the normal and statutorily condonable period. Applying Singh Enterprises, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals), as a creature of statute, had no power to condone delay beyond the period expressly permitted by law. The plea on delayed service failed, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred without examination of the merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.