TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances, the petitioner has approached the High Court. Held that:- Before the Tribunal also, the report was not placed on record, obviously it was not made available to the petitioner. If that be so, a serious question would arise how such materials could have been utilised to make such substantial additions. - The Tribunal was also of the opinion that the transactions of the petitioner appeared to be genuine. Full wavier granted to the petitioner - entire proceedings sent back before first appellate authority to be decided on merits - Decided in favor of petitioner. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8956 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 23-6-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : NANAVATI ASSOCIATES, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ched the High Court. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that the disallowance of the input tax credit was solely on account of what the authority believed was nonconciliation of input tax credit. However, the authorities never brought such materials to the notice of the petitioner enabling the petitioner to point out the reasons for the discrepancies if at all. Thus, the adverse material which was used against the petitioner was never provided enabling the petitioner to meet with the same. Counsel submitted that even the Tribunal agreed that such data was not available and that therefore, the petitioner's case appeared to be genuine despite which the Tribunal required the petitioner to deposit 20% of the tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terials could have been utilised to make such substantial additions. The Tribunal was also of the opinion that the transactions of the petitioner appeared to be genuine. If that be so, the question would be why was the petitioner required to deposit 20 per cent of the tax demand by way of pre-deposit to enable the petitioner to pursue the Appeal. This appeal itself was directed against the order of the first appellate authority dismissing the petitioner's appeal for failing to meet with pre-deposit requirements. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we would place the entire proceedings back before first appellate authority to be decided on merits. For such purpose, the orders dated 22.4.2016 passed by the first appellate au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
