Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2001 (6) TMI 835

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....city. However, the dispensation petition is not accompanied with any supporting documents. 2. The notices of hearing were sent to the appellant as well as his counsel. Whereas the notice sent to the appellant has been received back undelivered from postal authorities with the remarks 'not found inspite of repeated visits', the notice was served on the appellant's counsel as is evidenced by the acknowledgement receipt received from the postal authorities. No communication has been received from the counsel for adjournment of hearing or otherwise. In law, a notice to the counsel of a party is as good a notice to the party itself. In view of this, and having regard to the other relevant facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it jus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by him on 6-1-1984, the appellant, inter alia, stated that he has been visiting Singapore since 1978 onwards, purchasing articles there and selling them at Madras for profit. He admitted having acquired US $250 during August, 1982, US $250 during July, 1983 and US $300 during August, 1983 from the brokers at Burma Bazar, took the same to Singapore and utilised the same for purchasing articles there. Similarly, during January, 1984, he wanted to go to Singapore and as he could not acquire any US $, he purchased Fr.Fr. 14,000 from brokers in Burma Bazar, paying Indian Rs. 17,000. The appellant, however, retracted this admitted statement vide his letter dated 7-1-1984 and the respondent conveying their rejection vide their letter dated 9-2-19....