https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249676 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic merely because an addition is made in quantum proceedings; it requires concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. On trial run receipts, penalty was not justified because the receipts were disclosed in the balance sheet, reduced from work-in-progress, and the accounting treatment had been consistently followed, making the explanation bona fide and outside Explanation 1. On the debit balance write-off, penalty was sustained because the assessee failed to substantiate a deductible business claim or irrecoverability, and the explanation was found unsupported and not bona fide. The note also states that quantum-side deduction arguments did not displace the penalty computation basis. en-us Mon, 19 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249676 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic merely because an addition is made in quantum proceedings; it requires concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. On trial run receipts, penalty was not justified because the receipts were disclosed in the balance sheet, reduced from work-in-progress, and the accounting treatment had been consistently followed, making the explanation bona fide and outside Explanation 1. On the debit balance write-off, penalty was sustained because the assessee failed to substantiate a deductible business claim or irrecoverability, and the explanation was found unsupported and not bona fide. The note also states that quantum-side deduction arguments did not displace the penalty computation basis. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 19 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249676