Admittedly, the issuance of notice and initiation of re-assessment proceeding are beyond six years and, prima facie, it is barred by limitation both under the old Act as well as under newly amended provision relating to Section 147 of the Act.
For the technical fault is in the department’s system, petitioner should not be suffered and victimized respect unless the respondents’ specific case with specific record is that the aforesaid objection of the petitioner was uploaded beyond the time granted.
Assessment Order has been passed without considering the objection filed by the petitioner against the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and also on the ground that the said order is in violation of principle of natural justice by not affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in spite of specific request.
Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the amount shown in 26AS only should be taken into consideration even when the TDS certificate indicates a higher receipt ?
HC find that the allegation of the petitioner is substantially correct in the sense that petitioner’s objection to initiation of proceeding under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act has neither been considered nor rejected.
Delay and laches are not to be calculated solely by the length of the time taken by the party to approach the legal forum. It is elementary principle that none stands to benefit by lodging an appeal or a petition belatedly.
. The settled legal position is that while granting registration to a charitable institutions/Trust if it is at the commencement state the powers of the [CIT(E)] before whom the application is filed is limited to the aspect of examining whether or not the objects of the trust are charitable in nature.
It is well settled that by merely using the expression mens rea, it would not amount to concluding that there was a willful attempt on the part of the dealer to evade the payment of tax.
HC set aside the order passed by 7 Revenue Department cancelling GST Registrations of assessee on the grounds of suspicion. Held that, the transaction cannot be suspected merely on the grounds that the GST Registration of the other-end dealer was cancelled with retrospective effect.
Calcutta High Court held that Income Tax authorities can initiate afresh proceedings if the previous proceeding were invalid as per law.
