Imp Verdict On Power Of ITAT To Grant Stay Beyond 365 Days + CBDT Rule On Eligibility Of CAs To Be Authorized Representatives

 

Dear Subscriber,

DCIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited (Gujarat High Court)

S. 254(2A) third proviso cannot be interpreted to mean that extension of stay of demand should be denied beyond 365 days even when the assesseee is not at fault. ITAT should make efforts to decide stay granted appeals expeditiously

One cannot lost sight of the fact that there may be number of reasons due to which the learned Tribunal is not in a position to decide and dispose of the appeals within the maximum period of 365 days despite their best efforts. Some of the reasons due to which the learned Tribunal despite its best efforts is not in a position to dispose of the appeal/appeals at the earliest are stated herein above. There cannot be a legislative intent to punish a person/ assessee though there is no fault of the assessee and/or appellant

CBDT Notifies "Nature Of Business Relationship" That CA Can Have To Be Eligible To Act As "Authorized Representative"

Section 288 regulates the appearance by "authorized representatives" before any income-tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal. Sub-clause (viii) of the Explanation below s. 288(2), as amended by the Finance Act 2015, provides that a chartered accountant is eligible to be an "authorized representative" provided he is not "a person who, whether directly or indirectly, has business relationship with the assessee of such nature as may be prescribed". The CBDT has now issued a Notification dated 24.06.2015 to insert Rule 51A and to define the nature of "business relationship" which is covered by sub-clause (viii) of Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288 of the Act.

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Transfer Order Of Hon'ble ITAT Member (June 2015 – II)

__._,_.___