Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
The Tribunal held that retention and continued freezing of immovable and movable properties could not rest on a non-speaking order that merely reproduced pleadings and recorded only prima facie observations. After considering the reply, hearing the parties and the material on record, the Adjudicating Authority had to independently determine whether any property was involved in money-laundering under section 8. Mere pendency of investigation was insufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the presumption under section 24(a) applies only after foundational facts are established and must remain rebuttable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh de novo adjudication, with status quo to continue.
The Tribunal held that retention and continued freezing of immovable and movable properties could not rest on a non-speaking order that merely reproduced pleadings and recorded only prima facie observations. After considering the reply, hearing the parties and the material on record, the Adjudicating Authority had to independently determine whether any property was involved in money-laundering under section 8. Mere pendency of investigation was insufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the presumption under section 24(a) applies only after foundational facts are established and must remain rebuttable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh de novo adjudication, with status quo to continue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
