Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The ITAT upheld the validity of the reopening notice issued under section 148, finding that it was issued within the three-year limitation period prescribed under section 149, excluding the time allowed for the assessee to respond under section 148A(d). The Tribunal confirmed that prior approval under section 151 was duly obtained before issuance of the notice. The contention regarding retrospective applicability of the Finance Act, 2023 amendment to section 151 was left open for future determination. On merits, due to lack of substantive arguments and the protective nature of the assessment against the assessee, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the status of related proceedings against the assessee's spouse and affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT upheld the validity of the reopening notice issued under section 148, finding that it was issued within the three-year limitation period prescribed under section 149, excluding the time allowed for the assessee to respond under section 148A(d). The Tribunal confirmed that prior approval under section 151 was duly obtained before issuance of the notice. The contention regarding retrospective applicability of the Finance Act, 2023 amendment to section 151 was left open for future determination. On merits, due to lack of substantive arguments and the protective nature of the assessment against the assessee, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the status of related proceedings against the assessee's spouse and affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
