https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385843 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained for unexplained cash deposits where the assessee failed to give a satisfactory explanation, and the challenge to the penalty notice as defective was rejected because the penalty order recorded a clear basis and no prejudice was shown. For the later year, the Tribunal held that penalty had to be aligned with the quantum addition finally sustained, so the penalty could not stand on the full deposit amount when the addition itself had been restricted. Accordingly, penalty remained upheld for one year and was directed to be recomputed for the other year in line with the reduced addition. en-us Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Sep 2019 13:05:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385843 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained for unexplained cash deposits where the assessee failed to give a satisfactory explanation, and the challenge to the penalty notice as defective was rejected because the penalty order recorded a clear basis and no prejudice was shown. For the later year, the Tribunal held that penalty had to be aligned with the quantum addition finally sustained, so the penalty could not stand on the full deposit amount when the addition itself had been restricted. Accordingly, penalty remained upheld for one year and was directed to be recomputed for the other year in line with the reduced addition. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385843