Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Failure of the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account - burden of proof - The ITAT acknowledged the difference in the burden of proof between penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings. Mere disallowance or addition in quantum proceedings does not automatically warrant penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Considering the mitigating circumstances, including the deceased status of the appellant and the difficulty in independently proving circumstantial facts, the tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition was not justified and directed its reversal and deletion.
Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Failure of the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account - burden of proof - The ITAT acknowledged the difference in the burden of proof between penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings. Mere disallowance or addition in quantum proceedings does not automatically warrant penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Considering the mitigating circumstances, including the deceased status of the appellant and the difficulty in independently proving circumstantial facts, the tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition was not justified and directed its reversal and deletion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
