Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The ITAT held that the notice issued under section 142(1) was invalid as it failed to specify the sender, recipient, and subject, thereby not complying with the prescribed mode of transmission under section 144B(6)(ii)(a). Consequently, the notice was deemed not issued or served to the assessee. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the tribunal ruled that the assessment order based on such defective notice is arbitrary, legally unsustainable, and void ab initio. Accordingly, the assessment was quashed, rendering all subsequent proceedings non-est in law. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT held that the notice issued under section 142(1) was invalid as it failed to specify the sender, recipient, and subject, thereby not complying with the prescribed mode of transmission under section 144B(6)(ii)(a). Consequently, the notice was deemed not issued or served to the assessee. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the tribunal ruled that the assessment order based on such defective notice is arbitrary, legally unsustainable, and void ab initio. Accordingly, the assessment was quashed, rendering all subsequent proceedings non-est in law. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
