https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347718 The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was not justified as the assessee provided a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy in gross receipts, supported by reconciliation statements and relevant Circulars. The procedural lapse in the penalty order, where the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) was not mentioned, further supported the decision to cancel the penalty. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was set aside, with the findings clarified to have no impact on the quantum matter. en-us Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Sep 2017 09:19:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347718 The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was not justified as the assessee provided a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy in gross receipts, supported by reconciliation statements and relevant Circulars. The procedural lapse in the penalty order, where the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) was not mentioned, further supported the decision to cancel the penalty. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was set aside, with the findings clarified to have no impact on the quantum matter. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347718