https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777409 ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte appellate order and restored the matter to CIT(A), NFAC, because the appellate authority failed to follow the Tribunal's prior binding directions under s.254(1). CIT(A) did not summon the supplier for cross-examination or record the bank officer's statement, instead reiterating untested investigation findings and a third-party statement, denying the assessee opportunity to rebut. The Tribunal held this non-compliance vitiates the proceedings and ordered a fresh speaking adjudication on the merits after compliance with the earlier directions. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:56:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777409 ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte appellate order and restored the matter to CIT(A), NFAC, because the appellate authority failed to follow the Tribunal's prior binding directions under s.254(1). CIT(A) did not summon the supplier for cross-examination or record the bank officer's statement, instead reiterating untested investigation findings and a third-party statement, denying the assessee opportunity to rebut. The Tribunal held this non-compliance vitiates the proceedings and ordered a fresh speaking adjudication on the merits after compliance with the earlier directions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777409