https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65724 The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the penalty under section 271(1)(c), finding insufficient evidence of income concealment by the grocery business firm. The Tribunal emphasized the factual nature of the case and declined to refer legal questions to the High Court. The decision aligned with precedents from the Gauhati High Court, Mysore High Court, and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the determination of concealment is factual, not legal. The Tribunal's ruling was based on the lack of substantial proof of concealment, leading to the penalty cancellation and the rejection of further legal challenges by the Revenue. en-us Fri, 08 Jun 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:51:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65724 The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the penalty under section 271(1)(c), finding insufficient evidence of income concealment by the grocery business firm. The Tribunal emphasized the factual nature of the case and declined to refer legal questions to the High Court. The decision aligned with precedents from the Gauhati High Court, Mysore High Court, and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the determination of concealment is factual, not legal. The Tribunal's ruling was based on the lack of substantial proof of concealment, leading to the penalty cancellation and the rejection of further legal challenges by the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Jun 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65724