Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Revision under section 263 was upheld because the assessing officer failed to conduct at least a prima facie inquiry into whether penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) should be initiated after declaring income under provisions for unexplained income. The tribunal held that determination of unexplained income alone does not ipso facto dispense with inquiry into compliance or infractions; absence of any prima facie finding on penalty renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, justifying revision and resulting adverse decision against the assessee.
Revision under section 263 was upheld because the assessing officer failed to conduct at least a prima facie inquiry into whether penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) should be initiated after declaring income under provisions for unexplained income. The tribunal held that determination of unexplained income alone does not ipso facto dispense with inquiry into compliance or infractions; absence of any prima facie finding on penalty renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, justifying revision and resulting adverse decision against the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.