https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16419 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was treated as discretionary, and the Tribunal held that penalty could not follow automatically merely because unexplained investment was sustained in quantum proceedings. On that basis, it found no conscious concealment and deleted the penalty. The High Court held that no referable question of law arose for a statement of case under section 256(2), so the reference application was rejected. en-us Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:32:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16419 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was treated as discretionary, and the Tribunal held that penalty could not follow automatically merely because unexplained investment was sustained in quantum proceedings. On that basis, it found no conscious concealment and deleted the penalty. The High Court held that no referable question of law arose for a statement of case under section 256(2), so the reference application was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16419