Condonation of Delay: Tribunal directed condonation where rectification proceedings were pursued, ordering merits adjudication after opportunity to be...
Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Penalty under section 271D could not be sustained because the foundational allegation of acceptance of a cash loan was not conclusively established. The Tribunal noted that the assessment based on a seized loose paper and the lender's statement had already been quashed on a legal ground, leaving no final finding that the assessee had actually availed the loan. It also found that the alleged broker's identity was not established and no enquiry was made, so the claimed contravention of section 269SS remained unproved. The penalty was therefore directed to be deleted and the appeal was allowed.
Penalty under section 271D could not be sustained because the foundational allegation of acceptance of a cash loan was not conclusively established. The Tribunal noted that the assessment based on a seized loose paper and the lender's statement had already been quashed on a legal ground, leaving no final finding that the assessee had actually availed the loan. It also found that the alleged broker's identity was not established and no enquiry was made, so the claimed contravention of section 269SS remained unproved. The penalty was therefore directed to be deleted and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.