https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300831 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely based on additions confirmed in the quantum appeal without re-examining the issue in penalty proceedings. The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence of conscious concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars to justify the penalty. Aligning with precedents from the Delhi and Gujarat High Courts, the court concluded that the penalty was not justified in this case due to lack of proof regarding the credits shown by the creditors. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. en-us Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 27 Feb 2022 20:35:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300831 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely based on additions confirmed in the quantum appeal without re-examining the issue in penalty proceedings. The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence of conscious concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars to justify the penalty. Aligning with precedents from the Delhi and Gujarat High Courts, the court concluded that the penalty was not justified in this case due to lack of proof regarding the credits shown by the creditors. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300831