Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
An assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B was set aside because the assessee's reply was not considered and the position on the adjournment request was not clearly communicated. The Court held that, where an adjournment is sought, the Assessing Officer must communicate whether it is granted and, if so, the next date of hearing through the prescribed mode. Since the assessee filed a reply within the time stated and the impugned order made no reference to that reply or the accompanying submissions, the order breached the right of hearing and violated principles of natural justice. The assessment and demand notice were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh assessment after due hearing.
An assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B was set aside because the assessee's reply was not considered and the position on the adjournment request was not clearly communicated. The Court held that, where an adjournment is sought, the Assessing Officer must communicate whether it is granted and, if so, the next date of hearing through the prescribed mode. Since the assessee filed a reply within the time stated and the impugned order made no reference to that reply or the accompanying submissions, the order breached the right of hearing and violated principles of natural justice. The assessment and demand notice were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh assessment after due hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.