Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Mechanical approval under search assessment law vitiates assessments when sanction lacks application of mind; retrospective curative provision cannot ...
The Appellate Tribunal held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on estimated additions due to bogus purchases from hawala dealers was unjustified as the assessee failed to provide detailed information requested by the AO. The AO estimated the income at 9%, later reduced to 5% by CIT (A). The Tribunal cited similar cases where penalties were not upheld for estimated income additions. The Tribunal rejected the argument that low tax effect appeals by Revenue were invalid, stating that appeals on issues of addition and penalties based on specified information are permissible. The decision favored the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on estimated additions due to bogus purchases from hawala dealers was unjustified as the assessee failed to provide detailed information requested by the AO. The AO estimated the income at 9%, later reduced to 5% by CIT (A). The Tribunal cited similar cases where penalties were not upheld for estimated income additions. The Tribunal rejected the argument that low tax effect appeals by Revenue were invalid, stating that appeals on issues of addition and penalties based on specified information are permissible. The decision favored the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
