Penalties levied u/ss 271D and 271E were challenged. The assessee was found to have violated Sections...

Penalties levied u/ss 271D and 271E were challenged. The assessee was found to have violated Sections 269SS and 269T. However, there was no concrete finding that the assessee accepted loans or repaid them in violation of these sections. The Revenue's only evidence was the statement of the Director of Sudama Resorts, whose cheques were found with the assessee. The assessee sought cross-examination of the Director, which was not granted by the Assessing Officer. This statement lacks evidentiary value as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Andaman Timber Industries. Moreover, the Director of Sudama Resorts had surrendered income related to the cheques found during the search. There was no clear finding based on authentic evidence that the assess..... .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X