https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13978 Penalty was attracted where the assessee filed a return with highly inflated cultivation expenses and only a sketchy disclosure, while the correct figures were supplied only after the Department sought particulars; the conduct supported an inference of deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, so the challenge on merits failed. Section 22 did not require the satisfaction for penalty to be recorded only in the assessment order or for initiation to follow immediately after assessment, so the delay in issuing notice and order did not invalidate the proceedings. The revisional authority could restore the penalty under section 35 because the cancellation of a justifiable penalty order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. en-us Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:52:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13978 Penalty was attracted where the assessee filed a return with highly inflated cultivation expenses and only a sketchy disclosure, while the correct figures were supplied only after the Department sought particulars; the conduct supported an inference of deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, so the challenge on merits failed. Section 22 did not require the satisfaction for penalty to be recorded only in the assessment order or for initiation to follow immediately after assessment, so the delay in issuing notice and order did not invalidate the proceedings. The revisional authority could restore the penalty under section 35 because the cancellation of a justifiable penalty order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13978