https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277672 The tribunal confirmed the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the Assessee failed to provide sufficient explanation for significant undisclosed deposits in his bank accounts. Despite claiming the deposits were made on behalf of customers for Housing Board applications, the Assessee could not substantiate this claim adequately. The tribunal held that the Assessee's lack of genuine disclosure and failure to prove the bonafide nature of the deposits amounted to concealment of income. Relying on legal precedents, including the decision in CIT Vs. Mak data, the tribunal upheld the penalty, leading to the dismissal of the appeals for the Assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. en-us Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Dec 2018 05:51:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277672 The tribunal confirmed the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the Assessee failed to provide sufficient explanation for significant undisclosed deposits in his bank accounts. Despite claiming the deposits were made on behalf of customers for Housing Board applications, the Assessee could not substantiate this claim adequately. The tribunal held that the Assessee's lack of genuine disclosure and failure to prove the bonafide nature of the deposits amounted to concealment of income. Relying on legal precedents, including the decision in CIT Vs. Mak data, the tribunal upheld the penalty, leading to the dismissal of the appeals for the Assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277672