Bank account freezing requires statutory authority; anti-money-laundering compliance and KYC monitoring do not permit unilateral indefinite restrictio...
Handicraft job work receives concessional GST only for registered principals and predominantly handmade goods; commercial resin articles remain taxabl...
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under section 270A require valid jurisdiction, which must be assumed by the AO at the time of assessment or reassessment by issuing a show cause notice specifying the charge of under-reporting or misreporting. The CIT(A) cannot assume dual jurisdiction to levy penalty on the same facts once the AO has initiated penalty proceedings. In this case, the AO had assumed jurisdiction regarding surrendered income disclosed via revised return post-survey under section 133A, but penalty proceedings were kept pending. The CIT(A)'s issuance of penalty notice under section 274 read with 270A and passing of penalty order without valid jurisdiction was held to be legally untenable. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the CIT(A) was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under section 270A require valid jurisdiction, which must be assumed by the AO at the time of assessment or reassessment by issuing a show cause notice specifying the charge of under-reporting or misreporting. The CIT(A) cannot assume dual jurisdiction to levy penalty on the same facts once the AO has initiated penalty proceedings. In this case, the AO had assumed jurisdiction regarding surrendered income disclosed via revised return post-survey under section 133A, but penalty proceedings were kept pending. The CIT(A)'s issuance of penalty notice under section 274 read with 270A and passing of penalty order without valid jurisdiction was held to be legally untenable. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the CIT(A) was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.