https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339380 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained merely because the assessee made a survey disclosure of additional income. The Revenue had not produced corroborative material to show concealment, inflated expenditure heads, or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the assessment record contained no independent evidence supporting the charge. The note also reiterates that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are distinct, so a disclosure during survey does not by itself justify penalty where supporting evidence is absent. On this reasoning, the penalty was held unsustainable and deleted in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:38:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339380 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained merely because the assessee made a survey disclosure of additional income. The Revenue had not produced corroborative material to show concealment, inflated expenditure heads, or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the assessment record contained no independent evidence supporting the charge. The note also reiterates that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are distinct, so a disclosure during survey does not by itself justify penalty where supporting evidence is absent. On this reasoning, the penalty was held unsustainable and deleted in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339380