https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25623 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, clarifying that the Income-tax Officer is not obligated to specify the exact amount of concealed income when initiating penalty proceedings. It was held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide on penalty matters when the concealed income exceeds Rs. 25,000. The decision emphasized the adequacy of the Income-tax Officer's prima facie satisfaction regarding income concealment and upheld the validity of the penalty proceedings in this case. en-us Thu, 22 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:36:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25623 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, clarifying that the Income-tax Officer is not obligated to specify the exact amount of concealed income when initiating penalty proceedings. It was held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide on penalty matters when the concealed income exceeds Rs. 25,000. The decision emphasized the adequacy of the Income-tax Officer's prima facie satisfaction regarding income concealment and upheld the validity of the penalty proceedings in this case. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 22 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25623