https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236182 The appellate tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty, emphasizing that the AO's additions were based on estimates and lacked evidence of deliberate concealment or inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The tribunal highlighted that penalties under section 271(1)(c) require proof of mala fide intent, which was not established in this case. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order. en-us Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Apr 2016 10:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236182 The appellate tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty, emphasizing that the AO's additions were based on estimates and lacked evidence of deliberate concealment or inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The tribunal highlighted that penalties under section 271(1)(c) require proof of mala fide intent, which was not established in this case. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236182