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]

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Once resolution plan was approved and demand raised by Income Tax Department was not claimed in said resolution plan-Dues, if not forming part of resolution plan, would stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for period prior to date on which adjudicating authority (NCLT) granted its approval under section 31 could be continued-Recovery notice issued by Assessing Officer was quashed and set aside [S. 270a, 271 AAC, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, S.31, Art. 226]

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Deducted tax at a lower rate as payee had secured a certificate from concerned Assessing Officer for deduction of tax at a lower rate-No proceedings under section 201 were warranted-Notice was set aside.[S. 201(1), 201(IA), Art. 226]

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-Assessing Officer had not controverted any of facts as set out by company in its response to verification sought by Assessing Officer, said communication was to be accepted as correct-Assessing Officer was directed to consider response furnished by company as correct and process assessee’s request for TDS credit. [S. 221 (1), Art. 226]