https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281926 The tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ruling in favor of the Revenue. The tribunal found that the assessee failed to adequately explain the source of investment in the undeclared jewellery, leading to a clear case of concealment of income. Despite the assessee's claims of legitimate acquisition through VDIS and gifts, the absence of wealth tax returns raised doubts. The tribunal concluded that the explanation provided was insufficient, confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the cross objections by the assessee were dismissed. en-us Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jul 2019 07:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281926 The tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ruling in favor of the Revenue. The tribunal found that the assessee failed to adequately explain the source of investment in the undeclared jewellery, leading to a clear case of concealment of income. Despite the assessee's claims of legitimate acquisition through VDIS and gifts, the absence of wealth tax returns raised doubts. The tribunal concluded that the explanation provided was insufficient, confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the cross objections by the assessee were dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281926