TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
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 - (New and Powerful) ✕ 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: Whether the demand and penalties for alleged clandestine removal could be sustained on the basis of retracted statements and computer-generated material when cross-examination of witnesses was denied and the relied-upon documents were not made available in legible form.
Analysis: The relied-upon statement of the director was retracted, the assessees were not supplied legible copies of the material relied upon, and requests for cross-examination of witnesses were rejected. In a case of clandestine removal, the burden lies on the revenue to prove the allegation with credible evidence. The record did not show satisfactory corroboration of the electronic data or compliance with the statutory requirements governing admissibility of computer outputs. The denial of cross-examination and the absence of dependable corroborative evidence vitiated the adjudication as unfair and unsustainable.
Conclusion: The demand and penalties could not be sustained and were liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable for want of admissible evidence and breach of natural justice, and the appeals succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: In allegations of clandestine removal, a demand cannot be sustained on retracted statements and uncorroborated material unless the revenue proves the case with admissible evidence and affords effective cross-examination where relied-upon statements are used against the assessee.
TaxTMI 
