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...
AT upheld the admissibility and evidentiary value of statements recorded u/s 40 FERA, despite subsequent retraction, holding that retraction alone does not establish involuntariness and noting sufficient independent and cogent corroborative evidence, including recovered documents, seized cash and corroborating statements. AT affirmed findings of contravention of Ss. 8(1), 8(2), 9(1)(f)(i) and 14 FERA, rejecting the appellant's challenge to the merits of the adjudication. However, considering the appellant's age and prior deposit of part of the penalty, AT exercised discretion to reduce the penalty to Rs. 9,00,000/-, directing adjustment of amounts already deposited/released. Appeal was thus partly allowed, limited to quantum of penalty.
AT upheld the admissibility and evidentiary value of statements recorded u/s 40 FERA, despite subsequent retraction, holding that retraction alone does not establish involuntariness and noting sufficient independent and cogent corroborative evidence, including recovered documents, seized cash and corroborating statements. AT affirmed findings of contravention of Ss. 8(1), 8(2), 9(1)(f)(i) and 14 FERA, rejecting the appellant's challenge to the merits of the adjudication. However, considering the appellant's age and prior deposit of part of the penalty, AT exercised discretion to reduce the penalty to Rs. 9,00,000/-, directing adjustment of amounts already deposited/released. Appeal was thus partly allowed, limited to quantum of penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
