Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The ITAT held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application under section 80G(5)(iii) due to a typographical mistake indicating section 80G(5)(ii). The tribunal recognized the error and directed the assessee to submit a fresh application in Form No. 10AB under section 80G(5)(iii). The CIT(E) was instructed to adjudicate the revised application on its merits in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, effectively setting aside the initial rejection and providing the assessee an opportunity to rectify the procedural defect.
The ITAT held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application under section 80G(5)(iii) due to a typographical mistake indicating section 80G(5)(ii). The tribunal recognized the error and directed the assessee to submit a fresh application in Form No. 10AB under section 80G(5)(iii). The CIT(E) was instructed to adjudicate the revised application on its merits in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, effectively setting aside the initial rejection and providing the assessee an opportunity to rectify the procedural defect.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
