Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the assessment order for the assessee and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing. This decision aligns with the Tribunal's earlier ruling in the case of the co-owner, Dhirendra Nath Das, for the same assessment year. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with the notice issued u/s 142(1), considering the assessee's awareness of their responsibility as an employee of Indian Oil Corporation and the lack of a plausible explanation for non-compliance.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the assessment order for the assessee and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing. This decision aligns with the Tribunal's earlier ruling in the case of the co-owner, Dhirendra Nath Das, for the same assessment year. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with the notice issued u/s 142(1), considering the assessee's awareness of their responsibility as an employee of Indian Oil Corporation and the lack of a plausible explanation for non-compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
