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...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
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.