I.T.A. NO.4245/LB OF 2002 AND M.A. (COND.) NO.437/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2003. versus I.T.A. NO.4245/LB OF 2002 AND M.A. (COND.) NO.437/LB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2003.
A copy of the Appeal Tribunal Condition Appeal Order regarding the delay of section 134 (3) was forwarded to the Commissioner Income Tax Commissioner till 8 7 2002, while the order appealed against, in the memorandum of appeal by the Department. The date of the talk was mentioned. Since the appeal was filed in the Appellate Tribunal's office in 97 2002 as the plea for condolences for one day's delay on 7-9 2002 was self-contradictory and the misrepresentation of facts was filed by the Department on 7-9 2002. The appeal was invalid. One day when Commissioner Income Tax received a copy of the order on 8 7 2002 it was not expected that the top officials of the appellate tribunal of the Income Tax classification should misrepresent the facts as such misrepresentation of facts was taken seriously. Should take notice. The Appeal was filed by the department on 61st of the date
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
