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...
Penalty under section 271AAB was contested on the ground that the search team failed to examine or ascertain the source of cash and jewellery and did not inform searched persons of the disclosure obligation under section 132(4); the failure of authorised officers to question and elicit disclosures was held determinative of the penalty rate, leading to the conclusion that the lesser statutory penalty rate should apply. The assessing officer was directed to recompute the penalty at the lower rate and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Penalty under section 271AAB was contested on the ground that the search team failed to examine or ascertain the source of cash and jewellery and did not inform searched persons of the disclosure obligation under section 132(4); the failure of authorised officers to question and elicit disclosures was held determinative of the penalty rate, leading to the conclusion that the lesser statutory penalty rate should apply. The assessing officer was directed to recompute the penalty at the lower rate and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.