S. 253: Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Filing fee-Old regime or new regime]-No variation on quantification on assessed income-In terms of provisions of S 253(6), Clause (d) is applicable: filing fees only Rs 500; no defect in filing fees]-Delay of 71 days in filing an appeal was condoned. [S.115BC, 253(6)(d), 254(1)]

S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)]-Procedure-Condonation of delay-Refusal to condonation of delay and decision on merits-Once the appeal is not admitted on account of delay, the CIT(A) cannot proceed to decide the issue on merit-When CIT(A) has decided the issue on merit despite the delay in filing the appeal, it is deemed or implied that the CIT(A) has condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication. [S. 249(3), 251, 253]

S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)]-Procedure]-Duty Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss appeal on account of non-prosecution of appeal by assessee Duty-bound to dispose of the appeal through a speaking order on merits, on all the points which arose for determination in the appellate proceedings, including on all the grounds of appeal-Order of the CIT(A) is set aside and he is directed to pass de novo order as per law, in accordance with law. [250(6), 251 (2)]

S. 249: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Condonation of delay]-Delay of 5 years and 19 days-Reasonable cause-Order of the CIT(A) in not admitting the appeal of the assessee is quashed, and the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on its own merits.[S.250, 254(1)]

S. 154: Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Assessment-Prima facie adjustment under s. 143(1)(a)-Co-Operative society]-Denial as was authorised by Finance Act, 2021 was well within the provisions of law-Adjustment was held to be valid]-Rejection of rectification application was held to be justified. [S.80AC(ii), 80P, 143(1)(a)(v)]

S. 153D: Assessment-Search]-Approval-Departmental Representative produced a sealed envelope stating that he is relying on a “Confidential” document to prove “Application of mind” by the officer.-Each assessment year is different from the other, and the facts/additions made in separate assessment years demand separate application of mind, as is the requirement of S. 153D. Non-application of mind]-The order was quashed and set aside.[S. 132, 153A]

S. 153D: Assessment-Search-Approval-Failure to examine the seized documents-Addl. CIT approved 86 other orders pertaining to different assessees in these three days. The language of all these approvals is identical-The approving authority has granted common approval for all the assessment years in respect of the assessee-while granting the approval, the benefit of presumption under S. 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act that all official acts are regularly performed is not available to the Revenue. The assessment order was held to be void ab initio, hence quashed. [S.153A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.114(e)]

S. 153A: Assessment]-Search]-Incriminating material]-Balance sheet-Statement recorded-Not incriminating material-Addition was deleted. [S. 132]

S. 153A: Assessment]-Search-Incriminating material-32GB Pen-drive available with the Investigation Wing-Statement taken under section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act by Enforcement Directorate (ED)]-Excel sheets]-No additions could be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. [S. 132(4), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, S.50]

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Period of six years-Original notice under S. 148, which was deemed to be a notice issued under S. 148A(b)-The notice issued under S. 148 on 22nd July, 2022, was barred by limitation.[S. 147, 148, 148A(b)]