https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330303 Penalty under section 158BFA(2) was held unsustainable where the quantum addition was ultimately retained only on a peak-credit estimate and not on a direct finding of proved concealment. The Tribunal noted that the penalty basis had shifted in appeal: the original allegation rested on seized loose papers and benami assumptions, while the final addition was determined on estimation and preponderance of probabilities. Because the statutory satisfaction for penalty must match the basis on which undisclosed income is determined, and no specific incriminating material was found in the assessee's possession, the precondition for levy was not met. The penalty was deleted. en-us Thu, 14 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Mar 2022 15:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330303 Penalty under section 158BFA(2) was held unsustainable where the quantum addition was ultimately retained only on a peak-credit estimate and not on a direct finding of proved concealment. The Tribunal noted that the penalty basis had shifted in appeal: the original allegation rested on seized loose papers and benami assumptions, while the final addition was determined on estimation and preponderance of probabilities. Because the statutory satisfaction for penalty must match the basis on which undisclosed income is determined, and no specific incriminating material was found in the assessee's possession, the precondition for levy was not met. The penalty was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330303