Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The SC held that the respondent did not qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, due to lack of privity of contract with the appellant. The appellant's liability, if any existed, was limited to what was stipulated in the Home Loan Agreement with the borrower, and specifically to satisfying the complainant-respondent's dues with ICICI Bank (quantified at Rs.17,87,763/- and not exceeding Rs.23,40,000/-). The NCDRC erred in holding the appellant liable for Rs.31,00,000/-. Additionally, the NCDRC failed to properly address the significant delay in filing the complaint (filed in 2018 for a cause of action from 2008) by neither providing reasons nor issuing a formal order condoning the delay. Appeal allowed.
The SC held that the respondent did not qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, due to lack of privity of contract with the appellant. The appellant's liability, if any existed, was limited to what was stipulated in the Home Loan Agreement with the borrower, and specifically to satisfying the complainant-respondent's dues with ICICI Bank (quantified at Rs.17,87,763/- and not exceeding Rs.23,40,000/-). The NCDRC erred in holding the appellant liable for Rs.31,00,000/-. Additionally, the NCDRC failed to properly address the significant delay in filing the complaint (filed in 2018 for a cause of action from 2008) by neither providing reasons nor issuing a formal order condoning the delay. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
