Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Post-search scrutiny assessment remains available where original assessment limitation is unexpired, permitting timely completion under regular assess...
Penalty imposed u/s 270A(9) for underreporting and misreporting of income was challenged due to non-specification of clear charge. The Tribunal held that underreporting and misreporting have different connotations and consequences. In the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 270A, no specific charge or limb was specified. The Tribunal observed that the Delhi High Court in Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) had dealt with a case where the ingredients of sub-section 9 of Section 270A were not specified while imposing the penalty, ultimately affirming the deletion of the penalty. In the present case, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A without mentioning any sub-clause or specifying the limb for levying the proposed penalty. The notice was vague and did not mention "misreporting of income," whereas the penalty was ultimately levied for both underreporting and misreporting at 200% u/s 270A(9), for which no show cause notice was issued. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.
Penalty imposed u/s 270A(9) for underreporting and misreporting of income was challenged due to non-specification of clear charge. The Tribunal held that underreporting and misreporting have different connotations and consequences. In the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 270A, no specific charge or limb was specified. The Tribunal observed that the Delhi High Court in Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) had dealt with a case where the ingredients of sub-section 9 of Section 270A were not specified while imposing the penalty, ultimately affirming the deletion of the penalty. In the present case, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A without mentioning any sub-clause or specifying the limb for levying the proposed penalty. The notice was vague and did not mention "misreporting of income," whereas the penalty was ultimately levied for both underreporting and misreporting at 200% u/s 270A(9), for which no show cause notice was issued. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
