Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The HC dismissed the petition challenging attachment by Respondent-3 (Tax Recovery Officer), upholding the impugned order. Applying s.281 and the Second Schedule provisions, the court held that any transfer of assets during pendency or after completion of assessment proceedings, before service of notice under Rule 2, is void against the Revenue; intention to defraud is not required under the amended statutory regime. The petitioner's purchase post-initiation of proceedings against Respondent-4 cannot be protected as a bona fide purchaser in summary Article 226 proceedings; factual determination requires a civil suit. Given the transfer occurred after notice and in the context of assessment, the HC found no reason to interfere with the writ court's conclusion.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging attachment by Respondent-3 (Tax Recovery Officer), upholding the impugned order. Applying s.281 and the Second Schedule provisions, the court held that any transfer of assets during pendency or after completion of assessment proceedings, before service of notice under Rule 2, is void against the Revenue; intention to defraud is not required under the amended statutory regime. The petitioner's purchase post-initiation of proceedings against Respondent-4 cannot be protected as a bona fide purchaser in summary Article 226 proceedings; factual determination requires a civil suit. Given the transfer occurred after notice and in the context of assessment, the HC found no reason to interfere with the writ court's conclusion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
