https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62830 Later disclosure of income and reassessment did not erase concealment in the original return, so penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not barred on that ground. An alleged procedural defect in the assessment for want of reference under section 144B also did not, by itself, invalidate the penalty proceedings where the additions had not been annulled. However, the penalty orders were unsustainable because they were made before the required prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had been communicated, meaning the statutory condition precedent was absent at the time of the order. The matter was remitted for fresh action after obtaining the necessary approval. en-us Fri, 31 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:27:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62830 Later disclosure of income and reassessment did not erase concealment in the original return, so penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not barred on that ground. An alleged procedural defect in the assessment for want of reference under section 144B also did not, by itself, invalidate the penalty proceedings where the additions had not been annulled. However, the penalty orders were unsustainable because they were made before the required prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had been communicated, meaning the statutory condition precedent was absent at the time of the order. The matter was remitted for fresh action after obtaining the necessary approval. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 31 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62830