Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
AT affirmed that seized cash constitutes "property" under the PBPT and may be subject to benami proceedings. Appellant No.1 was validly proceeded against as a benamidar under ss.2(9)(C) and 2(9)(D) as the cash fell within the statutory definition of benami property; the challenge failed. Appellants Nos.2 and 3 were held not liable as they neither possessed nor claimed ownership of the seized cash. The requirement of prior approval under s.23 was held inapplicable where a show-cause notice had already been issued. The issuance of the SCN and available material sufficed for formation of reason to believe; absence of a fresh independent inquiry or pre-notice disclosure of reasons did not vitiate proceedings.
AT affirmed that seized cash constitutes "property" under the PBPT and may be subject to benami proceedings. Appellant No.1 was validly proceeded against as a benamidar under ss.2(9)(C) and 2(9)(D) as the cash fell within the statutory definition of benami property; the challenge failed. Appellants Nos.2 and 3 were held not liable as they neither possessed nor claimed ownership of the seized cash. The requirement of prior approval under s.23 was held inapplicable where a show-cause notice had already been issued. The issuance of the SCN and available material sufficed for formation of reason to believe; absence of a fresh independent inquiry or pre-notice disclosure of reasons did not vitiate proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
