Unsubstantiated exempt agricultural income claim sustains concealment penalty after disclosure only on departmental detection and no bona fide evidenc...
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
Summary
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
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.
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
