Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The HC allowed the petitioner's challenge and quashed and set aside the order imposing penalty under s.271(1)(c). The court found that the appeal under s.246A had been transferred to the NFAC which proceeded to confirm a penalty by invoking s.250 on incorrect factual and procedural premises instead of adjudicating the transferred appeal; material facts were undisputed and "res ipsa loquitur" applied. The petitioner's remedy by way of rectification under s.154 was noted, but the impugned penalty order was declared void ab initio and therefore liable to be set aside, with consequential relief to be determined in accordance with law.
The HC allowed the petitioner's challenge and quashed and set aside the order imposing penalty under s.271(1)(c). The court found that the appeal under s.246A had been transferred to the NFAC which proceeded to confirm a penalty by invoking s.250 on incorrect factual and procedural premises instead of adjudicating the transferred appeal; material facts were undisputed and "res ipsa loquitur" applied. The petitioner's remedy by way of rectification under s.154 was noted, but the impugned penalty order was declared void ab initio and therefore liable to be set aside, with consequential relief to be determined in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
