Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
ITAT held that omission to mention a Document Identification Number in the initiating notice did not invalidate the proceeding, because the retrospective validation under section 292BA cures a mere mistake, defect or omission where the order is otherwise referenced by DIN; the assessee's objection also had not been raised before the first appellate authority. On the penalty for cash acceptance, the Tribunal held that section 269SS applies only to receipt of a loan or deposit, not to repayment of earlier advances, but the factual nature of the receipts was not established on record. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee one further opportunity to produce evidence.
ITAT held that omission to mention a Document Identification Number in the initiating notice did not invalidate the proceeding, because the retrospective validation under section 292BA cures a mere mistake, defect or omission where the order is otherwise referenced by DIN; the assessee's objection also had not been raised before the first appellate authority. On the penalty for cash acceptance, the Tribunal held that section 269SS applies only to receipt of a loan or deposit, not to repayment of earlier advances, but the factual nature of the receipts was not established on record. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee one further opportunity to produce evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
