Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Inordinate delay in filing the first appeal was not condoned because the assessee failed to show sufficient or bona fide cause. The Tribunal found that the explanation of being unaware of the ex parte assessment was unconvincing, noting the failure to file a return even after notice under section 148 and the non-participation in assessment proceedings, which showed negligence and a lackadaisical approach. Applying the principle that sufficient cause does not extend to inaction, negligence or absence of bona fides, it upheld the CIT(A)'s refusal to exercise discretion under section 249(3) and sustained dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.
Inordinate delay in filing the first appeal was not condoned because the assessee failed to show sufficient or bona fide cause. The Tribunal found that the explanation of being unaware of the ex parte assessment was unconvincing, noting the failure to file a return even after notice under section 148 and the non-participation in assessment proceedings, which showed negligence and a lackadaisical approach. Applying the principle that sufficient cause does not extend to inaction, negligence or absence of bona fides, it upheld the CIT(A)'s refusal to exercise discretion under section 249(3) and sustained dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
