Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order on limitation grounds, holding that the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act could not be invoked. The show-cause notice, issued beyond the one-year period for the April 2002-August 2003 period, failed to aver specifically which default under the proviso (collusion, wilful misrepresentation or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty) was alleged, and the adjudicating authority did not establish those ingredients against the appellant. Because the Revenue bore the burden of proving dishonest intent and such allegations were absent, the demand falling within the extended period is not maintainable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order on limitation grounds, holding that the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act could not be invoked. The show-cause notice, issued beyond the one-year period for the April 2002-August 2003 period, failed to aver specifically which default under the proviso (collusion, wilful misrepresentation or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty) was alleged, and the adjudicating authority did not establish those ingredients against the appellant. Because the Revenue bore the burden of proving dishonest intent and such allegations were absent, the demand falling within the extended period is not maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
