Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the penalty order u/s 270A was barred by limitation prescribed u/s 275(1)(c). The Tribunal noted that penalty proceedings were initiated in December 2020, whether reckoned from the assessment order or from the penalty notice dated 08.12.2020. Consequently, the two possible limitation dates under s. 275(1)(c) were 31.03.2021 (end of the financial year) and 30.06.2021 (six months from the end of December 2020), with 30.06.2021 being the outer limit. As the penalty order was passed on 30.12.2021, it was held to be time-barred and without jurisdiction. The penalty was accordingly quashed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed in full.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the penalty order u/s 270A was barred by limitation prescribed u/s 275(1)(c). The Tribunal noted that penalty proceedings were initiated in December 2020, whether reckoned from the assessment order or from the penalty notice dated 08.12.2020. Consequently, the two possible limitation dates under s. 275(1)(c) were 31.03.2021 (end of the financial year) and 30.06.2021 (six months from the end of December 2020), with 30.06.2021 being the outer limit. As the penalty order was passed on 30.12.2021, it was held to be time-barred and without jurisdiction. The penalty was accordingly quashed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
