The issue concerned reassessment initiated through a non-faceless notice despite a binding notification. The ruling confirms that violation of the faceless framework vitiates reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that reassessment based on a notice issued by the wrong authority cannot survive in law. The decision highlights strict adherence to procedural requirements under the faceless regime.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s power to remand an ex-parte assessment for fresh adjudication. It ruled that such action was within jurisdiction, leading to dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal.
The issue was whether penalty could survive after the assessment order was set aside. The Tribunal held that once the basis of the addition is extinguished, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that reassessment remains valid when the notice is issued while the company is still on the ROC records. Subsequent striking off does not nullify initiated proceedings.
The High Court set aside a GST demand after finding that no personal hearing was granted under Section 75(4). The ruling reiterates that adverse GST orders cannot be passed without following mandatory hearing requirements.
The Tribunal found that reasonable opportunity was not given at assessment or appellate stage. The ₹17.94 lakh addition was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, noting that transferred employees performed functions entirely for the assessee. Salary expenditure was held to be incurred for business purposes.
The Court held that the petitioner suppressed the fact of an earlier withdrawn writ challenging the same order. The petition was dismissed with costs and limited relief granted only for statutory application.
The tribunal upheld dismissal of a bank’s appeal, holding that repeated applications were unnecessary when earlier orders already permitted recovery through auction of attached properties.
