Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
ITAT held that, in set-aside proceedings under the Act, the AO issued five notices u/s 142(1); the assessee failed to comply with the initial three and complied with the subsequent two. The assessee's plea of unfamiliarity with the e-filing portal was rejected as unconvincing and unsupported by non-receipt evidence. However, ITAT found that multiple successive notices seeking the same information constitute a single default, not multiple defaults. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) was restricted to one default: the penalty is confirmed to the extent of Rs.10,000 and the balance of the penalty imposed by the AO is deleted.
ITAT held that, in set-aside proceedings under the Act, the AO issued five notices u/s 142(1); the assessee failed to comply with the initial three and complied with the subsequent two. The assessee's plea of unfamiliarity with the e-filing portal was rejected as unconvincing and unsupported by non-receipt evidence. However, ITAT found that multiple successive notices seeking the same information constitute a single default, not multiple defaults. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) was restricted to one default: the penalty is confirmed to the extent of Rs.10,000 and the balance of the penalty imposed by the AO is deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
