Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned order enhancing penalty under s.112(a) of the Customs Act against the employee cannot be sustained where the employer (CHA firm) was previously exonerated of penalty on the same facts; the Tribunal found no justification for increasing the penalty from Rs.5,00,000 to Rs.20,00,000, accorded the appellant the benefit of the principle that an employee is not liable where the employer is not found guilty, and directed that the enhancement be set aside. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner to record cogent reasons if further action is contemplated; the appeal is allowed and the contested enhanced penalty vacated.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned order enhancing penalty under s.112(a) of the Customs Act against the employee cannot be sustained where the employer (CHA firm) was previously exonerated of penalty on the same facts; the Tribunal found no justification for increasing the penalty from Rs.5,00,000 to Rs.20,00,000, accorded the appellant the benefit of the principle that an employee is not liable where the employer is not found guilty, and directed that the enhancement be set aside. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner to record cogent reasons if further action is contemplated; the appeal is allowed and the contested enhanced penalty vacated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
