https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71670 The case involved issues regarding the validity of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the proper assessment year for unexplained investment and cash credits, the voluntariness and timing of revised returns, and the applicability of legal precedents in determining the penalty. The CIT(A) concluded that the penalty imposed by the AO was not justified as the additional income was offered voluntarily before any notice was issued, and there was no evidence linking the impugned amount to the assessee. The Third Member upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty. en-us Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71670 The case involved issues regarding the validity of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the proper assessment year for unexplained investment and cash credits, the voluntariness and timing of revised returns, and the applicability of legal precedents in determining the penalty. The CIT(A) concluded that the penalty imposed by the AO was not justified as the additional income was offered voluntarily before any notice was issued, and there was no evidence linking the impugned amount to the assessee. The Third Member upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71670