Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Penalty under section 271AAC was upheld because the Tribunal found that the quantum addition for unexplained investment had already been conclusively sustained on incriminating digital material and could not be reopened in penalty proceedings. It held that section 271AAC applies where income is determined under section 115BBE, and the statutory immunity is unavailable unless the income is disclosed in the return and tax is paid within the prescribed time, which was not done. The Tribunal further held that the word "may" requires judicial discretion, but where unexplained investment is established and no bona fide explanation or reasonable cause is shown, penalty follows as the natural legal consequence.
Penalty under section 271AAC was upheld because the Tribunal found that the quantum addition for unexplained investment had already been conclusively sustained on incriminating digital material and could not be reopened in penalty proceedings. It held that section 271AAC applies where income is determined under section 115BBE, and the statutory immunity is unavailable unless the income is disclosed in the return and tax is paid within the prescribed time, which was not done. The Tribunal further held that the word "may" requires judicial discretion, but where unexplained investment is established and no bona fide explanation or reasonable cause is shown, penalty follows as the natural legal consequence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.