Unverified Insight Portal Information Cannot Justify Reassessment Without a Verified Taxpayer-Specific Income-Escape Nexus or Demonstrated Application...
Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that every non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1) gives a separate cause of action for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b). There must be a specific initiation and issuance of notice u/s 271(1)(b) for each non-compliance, and the assessee must be put on notice. Initiating penalty proceedings and levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1) is incorrect. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued only one notice u/s 271(1)(b), which the assessee claimed was never received, and the AO imposed an ex-parte penalty u/s 271(1)(b), breaching principles of natural justice. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] did not verify the assessee's contentions and explanations regarding non-compliance with notices u/s 271(1)(b) and dismissed the appeal without calling for records or specifying the non-compliance upheld. The ITAT accepted the assessee's contentions and deleted the penalty, considering the reasonable explanation for not attending the AO's hearing and the provisions of Sections 273B and 271(1)(b).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that every non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1) gives a separate cause of action for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b). There must be a specific initiation and issuance of notice u/s 271(1)(b) for each non-compliance, and the assessee must be put on notice. Initiating penalty proceedings and levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1) is incorrect. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued only one notice u/s 271(1)(b), which the assessee claimed was never received, and the AO imposed an ex-parte penalty u/s 271(1)(b), breaching principles of natural justice. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] did not verify the assessee's contentions and explanations regarding non-compliance with notices u/s 271(1)(b) and dismissed the appeal without calling for records or specifying the non-compliance upheld. The ITAT accepted the assessee's contentions and deleted the penalty, considering the reasonable explanation for not attending the AO's hearing and the provisions of Sections 273B and 271(1)(b).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
