Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Effective service requirement: officers must explore alternative service modes beyond the GST portal and afford personal hearing; non-compliance voids...
Prior approval for search assessments was treated as a substantive jurisdictional safeguard, so the approving authority had to apply an independent mind to the appraisal report, seized material and assessment records for each year. The ITAT majority found that the Addl. CIT relied only on what the Assessing Officer stated, issued identically worded approvals for multiple years, and did not demonstrate any real examination of the relevant material. Such mechanical and non-speaking approval could not substitute the statutory requirement, and the assessments based on it were held unsustainable and quashed.
Prior approval for search assessments was treated as a substantive jurisdictional safeguard, so the approving authority had to apply an independent mind to the appraisal report, seized material and assessment records for each year. The ITAT majority found that the Addl. CIT relied only on what the Assessing Officer stated, issued identically worded approvals for multiple years, and did not demonstrate any real examination of the relevant material. Such mechanical and non-speaking approval could not substitute the statutory requirement, and the assessments based on it were held unsustainable and quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.