Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The AT held that the impugned retention order concerning seized articles, including gold, violated natural justice by failing to issue the mandatory minimum 30-day notice under s.8(1) of the Act to require the appellant to disclose the source of income/assets; the Tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that a shareholder/director could be treated as representing the appellant without documentary authorization. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand: the matter is returned to the Adjudicating Authority with directions to serve the requisite s.8(1) notice on the appellant company and to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and due process.
The AT held that the impugned retention order concerning seized articles, including gold, violated natural justice by failing to issue the mandatory minimum 30-day notice under s.8(1) of the Act to require the appellant to disclose the source of income/assets; the Tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that a shareholder/director could be treated as representing the appellant without documentary authorization. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand: the matter is returned to the Adjudicating Authority with directions to serve the requisite s.8(1) notice on the appellant company and to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and due process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
