Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
ITAT upheld that the assessee failed to comply with successive...
Assessee penalized for persistent non-compliance with s.142(1); penalty under s.271(1)(b) reduced to Rs.10,000 on procedural ground while non-compliance facts upheld
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
ITAT upheld that the assessee failed to comply with successive notices issued under s.142(1) and offered no reasonable explanation; non-compliance persisted during penalty proceedings and before the Ld. CIT(A). However, ITAT found the AO erred in levying a composite penalty of Rs.20,000 under s.271(1)(b), observing that under s.271(1)(b) each distinct failure attracts a separate penalty and separate notice is requisite for multiple failures. Consequentially, ITAT reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000 and partly allowed the appeal, leaving the factual finding of non-compliance intact but modifying the quantum of penalty on procedural grounds.
ITAT upheld that the assessee failed to comply with successive notices issued under s.142(1) and offered no reasonable explanation; non-compliance persisted during penalty proceedings and before the Ld. CIT(A). However, ITAT found the AO erred in levying a composite penalty of Rs.20,000 under s.271(1)(b), observing that under s.271(1)(b) each distinct failure attracts a separate penalty and separate notice is requisite for multiple failures. Consequentially, ITAT reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000 and partly allowed the appeal, leaving the factual finding of non-compliance intact but modifying the quantum of penalty on procedural grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.