Additions under Section 69A could not be sustained without concrete evidence and due process and AO had not brought any tangible evidence to prove the alleged cash loan.
Thereafter, there was change in incumbent and fresh opportunity was provided and notice u/s.142(1) was issued. But this notice was returned back with the remarks that “the assessee was not in given address”.
The JDA was signed between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim on one side as landowners and Mr. Abdul Khader K (on behalf of the assessee) and Mr. K. Hussain Abbas (on behalf of the HNGC Builders and Developers).
Complainants stated that sometime in March – 2018, Respondent No.- 1 started Shifting its Work from Goregaon Godown to Bhivandi Godown and ultimately closed Down the Establishment at Goregaon and shifted its activities to Bhivandi.
Aggrieved by this decision, assessee appealed to Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who ruled in its favor, restoring the original classification under CTH 85340000 and setting aside the penalty and confiscation order.
While at the time of debonding, the value of raw material cleared had to be valued at the time of importation, and the rate of duty was the effective rate of duty leviable on the imported goods at the time of debonding.
Assessee had appealed against the order dated 12.06.2024 and 18.06.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the AY 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19,challenging the denial of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) on certain interest incomes.
The ECB purpose was declared to the RBI for both imported and locally sourced capital goods. However, the claim was disallowed under Section 143(1) due to inconsistencies between the tax audit report and the return of income.
The aforementioned action by assessee implied that assessee had accepted the reassessment and enhancement. Consequently, the appropriate officer was not supposed to issue a speaking order in accordance with Section 17(5) of the Customs Act.
On appeal. It was held that application for refund was rightly rejected, as it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of six years from the end of the assessment year for which the application/claim was made.
