Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld because the assessee...
Unsubstantiated exempt agricultural income claim sustains concealment penalty after disclosure only on departmental detection and no bona fide evidence.
📋
Contents
Cases Cited
Referred In
Notifications
Circulars
Forms
Manuals
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Case Laws New
Ref Provisions New
Plus +
Source NTF
Summary
Similar
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld because the assessee failed to substantiate that the investment came from exempt agricultural income or any other explained source. No cogent documentary evidence was produced despite opportunities during assessment, penalty, and appellate proceedings, and the income was not disclosed in the original return or the return filed under section 148. The disclosure arose only after departmental detection in reassessment, so it was treated as non-voluntary. The plea of surrender to buy peace did not bar penalty, and Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) applied because bona fides and substantiation were not established.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.