https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72055 The ITAT concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified for the additional income declared by the assessee, as it was based on estimated gross profit without concrete evidence of concealment. The ITAT emphasized the revenue's burden to prove conscious concealment or deliberate inaccuracies, which was not demonstrated. Consequently, the ITAT partly allowed the appeals, ruling that the penalty on the income of Rs. 24,34,709 for the assessment year 2004-05 and the addition due to a higher net profit rate was not applicable. Penalty was only applicable on the difference between the income declared under section 153A and the original return, excluding amounts deemed not leviable. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Dec 2023 11:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72055 The ITAT concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified for the additional income declared by the assessee, as it was based on estimated gross profit without concrete evidence of concealment. The ITAT emphasized the revenue's burden to prove conscious concealment or deliberate inaccuracies, which was not demonstrated. Consequently, the ITAT partly allowed the appeals, ruling that the penalty on the income of Rs. 24,34,709 for the assessment year 2004-05 and the addition due to a higher net profit rate was not applicable. Penalty was only applicable on the difference between the income declared under section 153A and the original return, excluding amounts deemed not leviable. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72055