Validity of an ex-parte revisionary order passed by the ...

Ex-parte order by tax officials upheld for reassessment on cash dealings & penalty proceedings.

Case Laws Income Tax

September 6, 2024

Validity of an ex-parte revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. The key points are: The PCIT passed the revisionary order after considering the assessee's submissions, refuting allegations of violating principles of natural justice. The order was within the statutory time limit of two years from the end of the relevant financial year. The PCIT had revisionary jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer's (AO) order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests by not examining cash transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000, attracting disallowance u/s 40A(3). The AO's order was cryptic, lacking examination of issues mandated for scrutiny under CASS. The PCIT correctly pointed out the AO's mistakes in not disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) and not initiating penalty proceedings u/ss 269SS, 269T, and 271D for cash loan repayments. The PCIT directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order, including consequential penalties, without transgressing jurisdiction u/s 263.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Validity of an ex-parte revisionary order passed by the ...

Ex-parte order by tax officials upheld for reassessment on cash dealings & penalty proceedings.

Case Laws Income Tax

September 6, 2024

You may also like:

The case involved a challenge to penalty orders u/ss 271D and 271E before the Appellate Tribunal. The issue revolved around the reassessment proceedings being quashed,...

Validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 - Unexplained cash credit and application of section 115BB - The ITAT while upheld the reassessment proceedings sicne AO...

Monetary limit for filing of appeal by revenue in case of penalty - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on bogus purchases - Quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are...

Addition u/s 69A - Addition of cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period - The Tribunal examined the legality of the assessment order, the...

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Failure of the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account - burden of proof - The ITAT acknowledged the...

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained cash payment - Two notices issued u/s 148 - it is a case where pending conclusion of the first reassessment proceedings,...

The High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, holding it to be a case of "change of opinion" and...

Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for two types of additions: (1) the addition made u/s 50C on the difference between stamp duty value and sale...

Levy of penalty u/ss 271D and 271E was challenged - default u/ss 269SS and 269T - assessee received and repaid cash loans from directors and related concerns - assessee...

Revision u/s 263 - penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) - The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the...

Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271C and the limitation period for levying such penalty. The key points are: The penalty proceedings were initiated on the date of...

Validity of Penalty u/s 271D and u/s 271E - Penalty proceeding as independent of the assessment proceeding - absence of satisfaction recorded in the reassessment u/s 147...

Cash deposit during demonetization period treated as unexplained cash credit. Assessee's claim of introducing cash as capital in proprietary concern not accepted due to...

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 against the assessee based on documents seized from the premises of J.K. Jain during a CBI...

This case deals with the levy of penalties u/ss 271AAA and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in relation to various additions made to the assessee's income based on seized...

Quick Updates: