S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Multiple e-mail id-Opportunity of being heard-Primary and email id-Notices were sent email-Responded by the assessee-Opportunity of hearing was given-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 254(1) Art. 226]

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Multiple e-mail id-Opportunity of being heard-Notices were sent email-Responded by the assessee-Communications to the assessee were not sent at the addresses indicated in the appeal memorandum-Order of single judge dismissing the petition. is set aide-CIT(A) is directed to issue a fresh notice of hearing at correct email address and thereafter pass the orders in the appeal-Strictures-Department is advised to evolve a procedure whereby e-mail ids furnished by the assessees are regularly updated after confirmation with the assessee, so that at any given point in time, an assessee can only insist upon a maximum of three e-mail ids to which communications intended for him may be addressed. [S. 254(1) Art. 226]

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Pendency of appeal-Prima facie case-Pre-deposit of 20 percent of demand is not mandatory-Matter remanded to the AO for reconsideration.[S. 250, Art. 226]

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Refund-Adjustment of refund against demand without considering stay application-Matter is remanded for reconsideration. [S.220 (6), Art. 226]

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Refund-Excess levy of surcharge-Strictures-Statutory remedy-Technological impediment cannot be a reason for harassing an assessee year after year and therefore, Income Tax Department should take steps to upgrade software instead of blaming technology for erroneous calculation of surcharge-Immediate steps must be taken by Revenue to upgrade software or take such other steps as might be necessary to ensure that such mistake did not occur in future-Central Board for Direct Taxes should also take necessary steps for rectifying software as issue might not be resolved by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. [S. 156, 220, 237, 240, Art. 132, 226]

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Merely on the basis of statement under section 132(4) without any other material discovered during the search-No addition can be made-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed.[S. 132, 132(4), 143(3), 260A, 292B]

S. 151 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Sanction for issue of notice-Recording of satisfaction-There is no requirement for the CIT to record his own reasons and it would suffice that he records the satisfaction regarding the reasons recorded the AO. [S. 147, 148, Art. 226]

S 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Merger-Amalgamation-Notice in the name of non-existing amalgamating company-Transferor-company got merged with assessee/transferee-company under scheme of amalgamation and thereby lost its existence, assessment order passed subsequently in name of said non-existing entity, would be without jurisdiction and set aside. [S.147, 148, Art. 226]

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Natural justice-Order passed next day-Rules of natural justice are found completely broken-Order is quashed and set aside-AO is directed to pass the order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. [S. 142(1), O 148, 148A(b)I, 148A((d), Art. 226]

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Notice in the name of deceased-Non application of mind by the Assessing Officer and sanctioning authority-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151, Art. 226]