https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240740 The ITAT Pune set aside a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2006-07 on a Civil Contractor for alleged income concealment. Despite upholding the quantum addition due to lack of specific evidence, the tribunal found the penalty unwarranted. It noted the alignment of transactions between the assessee and his father, indicating a genuine nature despite lacking specific entries in accounts. Emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence for penalty charges, the decision underscores the nuanced approach required in distinguishing between quantum additions and penalty levies in cases of alleged income concealment. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:35:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240740 The ITAT Pune set aside a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2006-07 on a Civil Contractor for alleged income concealment. Despite upholding the quantum addition due to lack of specific evidence, the tribunal found the penalty unwarranted. It noted the alignment of transactions between the assessee and his father, indicating a genuine nature despite lacking specific entries in accounts. Emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence for penalty charges, the decision underscores the nuanced approach required in distinguishing between quantum additions and penalty levies in cases of alleged income concealment. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240740