Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS.602/LB AND 467/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 26TH NOVEMBER, 2004. versus I.T.AS. NOS.602/LB AND 467/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 26TH NOVEMBER, 2004.

The order of the Assessee's signature on the production of section 62 accounts, evidence, etc., asserted that the Assessing Order was not signed by the Assessing Officer and he signed the demand notice only. Were. The department should have accepted illegal and announced results rather than reduced sales, did not deny that the order was not signed but requested that the notice signed on the demand be available on record Is enough to justify The IT30 form will be legal only after the approval of an order when the order of the Assessing Officer will be signed and there was no order but the notice of demand and the IT30 form supporting a signed order. Will be. In the closing sentence of the diagnostic order it was specifically given in accordance with the assessment issued in accordance with the demand notice and challan pursuant to IT 30. The issuing officer had to make the order to issue a copy of the order as it had Afterwards the office seal will be signed / pasted. The proper arrangement of events was to first pass an order which was to be issued while demanding notice, the format and copy of the IT 30 assessment order was missing the necessary preconditions. Because the order was not signed which required an officer to be asked to approve the assessment order before the demand notice was issued. It would have been appropriate if Arunio had failed to present a signed assessment. Order legalizing the order signed was full of disastrous consequences not only in the judicial process but also in administrative matters but the demand and IT how to become a advocate from Pindi Bhattian lawyer