Case Law Details
Case Name : Muhammed Kallat Vs ITO (Kerala High Court)
Related Assessment Year : 2015-16
Courts :
All High Courts Kerala High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Muhammed Kallat Vs ITO (Kerala High Court)
1. Background: The petitioner, an NRI, had a 75% ownership stake in a mall constructed in partnership. The ADIT Investigation wing conducted a verification, revealing significant investments. The petitioner, being an eligible assessee, received a draft assessment order and the opportunity to file objections within thirty days.
2. Request for Extension: The petitioner failed to submit objections within the stipulated thirty days and sought additional time. However, Sections 143(3) and (4) of the Income Tax Act do not provide provisions for extending th...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.
One Comment
Cancel reply
The Judgement did not mention when the draft AO was issued or received and when did the extension sought. Secondly, if.an extension is sought then a prayer as to first not accepting the Draft AO sentence should have added. Once non acceptance of the Draft AO is mentioned then it would stand at merit that it is not accepted stand. Limitation is not bypassed. Once objection as to the Not Acceptable will change the whole scenario of the case. Who guide the assesses? No means No and Not acceptance is Not acceptance. After that why will come.