https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335848 The tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars, as the assessee failed to substantiate the legitimacy of disallowed purchases. The decision emphasized the assessee's inability to produce evidence or witnesses, the impact of Sales Tax Department findings labeling suppliers as hawala dealers, and the acceptance of disallowance by surrendering the amount. The ruling underscored the burden on the assessee to prove transaction genuineness and highlighted the significance of proper documentation in financial dealings to prevent penalties. en-us Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 11 Dec 2016 17:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335848 The tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars, as the assessee failed to substantiate the legitimacy of disallowed purchases. The decision emphasized the assessee's inability to produce evidence or witnesses, the impact of Sales Tax Department findings labeling suppliers as hawala dealers, and the acceptance of disallowance by surrendering the amount. The ruling underscored the burden on the assessee to prove transaction genuineness and highlighted the significance of proper documentation in financial dealings to prevent penalties. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335848