TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the confiscation of 96 MT of CR Sheets and seizure of cash of Rs. 2,30,000 was sustainable; (ii) whether the penalty imposed on the partner was sustainable.
Issue (i): whether the confiscation of 96 MT of CR Sheets and seizure of cash of Rs. 2,30,000 was sustainable
Analysis: The appellant produced evidence of purchase of the sheets from traders, while the Revenue's case depended on the assumption that the goods had been received clandestinely from the manufacturer. The capacity of the manufacturer to produce CR Sheets was not established with reliable evidence, and the purchase documents were rejected without proper cross-verification from the sellers. As to the cash, the cashbook showed an adequate opening balance on the date of search, and there was no finding that the amount represented proceeds of clandestine activity.
Conclusion: The confiscation of the CR Sheets and the cash was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether the penalty imposed on the partner was sustainable
Analysis: The penalty rested on the same foundation as the confiscation. Once the alleged excess stock and cash seizure were found unsustainable, the basis for imposing personal penalty also failed.
Conclusion: The penalty on the partner was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned confiscation and penalty orders were annulled, with consequential relief including return of the seized cash with interest.
TaxTMI 
