https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14310 HC held that penalty under s.271(1)(c) could not be sustained. Though cash credits were treated as income in quantum proceedings due to inadequate explanation and lack of supporting documents, the same record alone did not justify imposing penalty via Explanation 1. The Department made no additional effort to displace the possibility that amounts were temporary sundry loans, nor did it summon the accountant who might have explained transactions. On these facts and circumstances, the court answered all issues in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, setting aside the penalty. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14310 HC held that penalty under s.271(1)(c) could not be sustained. Though cash credits were treated as income in quantum proceedings due to inadequate explanation and lack of supporting documents, the same record alone did not justify imposing penalty via Explanation 1. The Department made no additional effort to displace the possibility that amounts were temporary sundry loans, nor did it summon the accountant who might have explained transactions. On these facts and circumstances, the court answered all issues in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, setting aside the penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14310