Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
The ITAT held that the penalty under section 271D was barred by limitation as it was imposed after the prescribed deadline of 28.02.2023, with the order dated 29.03.2023 being invalid. Additionally, the reopening of assessment was quashed due to improper approval under section 151, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. Consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271D could not be sustained in the absence of a valid assessment order. The Tribunal relied on precedents confirming that penalty action does not survive when the assessment itself is invalid. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271D and the reassessment proceedings were set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT held that the penalty under section 271D was barred by limitation as it was imposed after the prescribed deadline of 28.02.2023, with the order dated 29.03.2023 being invalid. Additionally, the reopening of assessment was quashed due to improper approval under section 151, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. Consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271D could not be sustained in the absence of a valid assessment order. The Tribunal relied on precedents confirming that penalty action does not survive when the assessment itself is invalid. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271D and the reassessment proceedings were set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
