https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13024 Whether penalty under s. 271(1)(c) could be sustained when the quantum addition was made by applying the proviso to s. 145(1) was determined on the footing that such an addition, based on rejection/adjustment of accounts and estimation, does not by itself establish "concealment" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars." The appellate authority had accepted the taxpayer's plea of absence of concealment, and the Tribunal affirmed this view by applying binding HC precedent holding that penalty cannot rest solely on such an addition. The HC found no substantial question of law arising from these concurrent factual and legal findings and dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding deletion of the penalty. en-us Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 04 Jan 2026 21:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13024 Whether penalty under s. 271(1)(c) could be sustained when the quantum addition was made by applying the proviso to s. 145(1) was determined on the footing that such an addition, based on rejection/adjustment of accounts and estimation, does not by itself establish "concealment" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars." The appellate authority had accepted the taxpayer's plea of absence of concealment, and the Tribunal affirmed this view by applying binding HC precedent holding that penalty cannot rest solely on such an addition. The HC found no substantial question of law arising from these concurrent factual and legal findings and dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding deletion of the penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13024