2025 (7) TMI 1861

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6W in the Appeal against Order No. T.NO.241/24-25 dtd. 30.04.2024. ii. To issue an appropriate writ or order to quash set aside the Annexure-B order passed by the 2nd Respondent in order no. T.NO. 241/24-25 DTD. 30.04.2024. iii. To issue an appropriate writ or order to quash set aside the Annexure C intimation issued by the 2nd Respondent. iv. To remit the case back to the 2nd Respondent and to direct the 2nd Respondent to facilitate an opportunity to the Petitioner to be heard before passing the final order. v. To issue an appropriate order or direction that may be deemed just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The second respondent served a scrutiny notice on the petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ally certain documents had been furnished, the reconciliation thereof as per the format sent by the email dated 27.04.2024 could not be furnished by the petitioner within the expected time. The details having been provided to the chartered accountant on 03.05.2024, the chartered accountant had submitted the said statement on 04.05.2024, by which time the order had been passed. 6. Her submission is that this fact having been brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority could have taken into account the details which had been furnished and passed the orders on merits rather than confirming the order which had been passed on 30.04.2024 without considering the details which had been furnished albeit subsequently.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... furnished to the first respondent within time and that the appeal was deleted. 11. This is a case where the assessee has the documents, in the statement of objections which had been filed, the assessee had indicated the reconciliation which had been made. Of course, the same was not indicated in the format as desired by the first respondent, which had been communicated to the petitioner vide email dated 27.04.2024. Merely because it was not in terms of the said format, first respondent could not have, in my considered opinion come to a conclusion that there are no documents which have been furnished when details thereof had already been furnished. This aspect ought to have been looked into by the second respondent in the appeal and even....