S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Property held for charitable purposes-Since there was no discussion or finding on 34 questions raised under section 142(1), Assessing Officer should be taken as having accepted assessee’s explanation-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 11,12, 142(1), 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Lease hold improvements at its leasehold office premises-100 percent deprecaiation-Temporary erection-Assessing Officer had not examined nor applied his mind in respect of available rate of depreciation on leasehold improvements, granting said depreciation was erroneous prejudicial to interest of revenue-.Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 32, 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-share capital-Share premium-Principal Commissioner had to examine all records pertaining to assessment year at time of examination by him, which included, post-search assessment proceedings and thereafter only if he found that order passed by Assessing Officer on any issue was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to interest of revenue-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order was affirmed-SLP of revenue was dismissed as the revenue court not explain the delay of 646 days in filing SLP. [S. 68, 153A, Art. 136]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Tribunal statutorily obliged to consider appeals on merits-Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits of appeal is legally unsustainable.[S. 10B, 260A]

S. 254(1): : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Delay of six to seven years-Negligence of counsel-Ex-parte order was passed by the CIT(A)-Assessee was aware of negligence of counsel-Appeal was dismissed as time barred-Order of Tribunal affirmed.[S. 253(1), 260A]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Delay of 166 days-On SLP court held that the Tribunal and High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning delay of 166 days. Accordingly the orders were to be set aside by condoning delay in preferring appeal and Tribunal was to decide appeal in accordance with law. [S. 253(1), 260A, Art. 136]

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Assessment-Ex parte order-Officer issuing notices should strictly explore possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in section 169(1) of GST Act which were also valid mode of service under Act-Delay of six months-Application for condonation of delay was rejected-On writ the delay was condoned, subject to payment of Rs.5000 to the credit of the Principal Government of Naturopathy College and Hospital-Matter remanded to the file of CIT(A) to decide on merits. [S. 143(3), 246A, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, S.169(1), Art. 226]

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-There is no provision for rejecting an appeal for non-appearance of appellant-Irrespective of question whether appellant had appeared or not, appellate authority had to take decision by strictly following mandate contemplated under section 250(6) which could only be a decision answering points raised in appeal-CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the order. [S. 10(10C), 89(1),250(6), Art. 226]

S. 241 : Refund-Power to with hold in certain cases-Disposal of appeal, demand raised in assessment order being set aside-It was obligatory on part of tax authorities to refund amount recovered towards discharge of demand raised in reassessment order. [S.69A, 147, 226(3),Art. 226]

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Deposited entire outstanding tax dues along with accrued interest during pendency of appeal-Department itself had purchased land through auction with no third-party rights involved-Department was to be directed to release land to assessee upon receipt of payment from Court Registry. [Art. 136]