9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ging that the petitioner has not paid the amount demanded within due date - Held that:- Admittedly, the declaration filed by the petitioner was processed and an order in Form No.3 dated 06.05.1999 was issued, certifying that the petitioner paid the full tax arrears. On account of some mistakes, committed in the calculation, Revision Form 2A, dated 28.07.2000 was issued, stating that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complied with the condition and paid the money within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the Revised Form Notice. Hence, the impugned orders have been passed on a thorough misconception of the legal position. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in due date. Admittedly, the declaration filed by the petitioner was processed and an order in Form No.3 dated 06.05.1999 was issued, certifying that the petitioner paid the full tax arrears, as demanded in the order, dated 19.03.1999, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for immunity from instituting any proceeding for prosecution under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, it appears that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be sufficient, but the order should be communicated to the assessee or the person aggrieved. Therefore, this Court finds that the petitioner has complied with the condition and paid the money within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the Revised Form Notice. Hence, the impugned orders have been passed on a thorough misconception of the legal position. 5. For the aforesaid reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
