Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The CESTAT quashed the penalty imposed under s.112(b), Customs Act, 1962, finding that the impugned conviction rested solely on a statement retracted as given under duress and lacked independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated: the Appellant was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or to challenge recoveries, and the cash recovery purportedly linked to the Appellant was found unreliable given the circumstances. In consequence, the CESTAT set aside the adjudicating authority's order and allowed the appeal, concluding that the penalty could not be sustained on the record before it.
The CESTAT quashed the penalty imposed under s.112(b), Customs Act, 1962, finding that the impugned conviction rested solely on a statement retracted as given under duress and lacked independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated: the Appellant was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or to challenge recoveries, and the cash recovery purportedly linked to the Appellant was found unreliable given the circumstances. In consequence, the CESTAT set aside the adjudicating authority's order and allowed the appeal, concluding that the penalty could not be sustained on the record before it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
