https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326845 The Tribunal found that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. The key reasons included that the amounts in question were carried over from earlier years and should not be added under Section 68, the assessee had disclosed full particulars of the transactions, the AO did not conduct an independent enquiry for the penalty proceedings but relied on the assessment order, and similar cases where penalties were deleted under comparable circumstances were referenced. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, reversing the CIT(A)'s order and deleting the penalty of Rs. 13,77,028 under Section 271(1)(c). en-us Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:28:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326845 The Tribunal found that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. The key reasons included that the amounts in question were carried over from earlier years and should not be added under Section 68, the assessee had disclosed full particulars of the transactions, the AO did not conduct an independent enquiry for the penalty proceedings but relied on the assessment order, and similar cases where penalties were deleted under comparable circumstances were referenced. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, reversing the CIT(A)'s order and deleting the penalty of Rs. 13,77,028 under Section 271(1)(c). Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326845