https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751874 ITAT Rajkot held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified in two instances. First, regarding agricultural land purchase where the assessee agreed to addition but had shown contractual receipts, cash book entries, and disclosed the land in books and audit report. Second, concerning contractual receipts mismatch with Form 26AS involving only Rs. 1,05,827 against total receipts of Rs. 2,14,08,976. The tribunal found no mala fide intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars, ruling that mere agreement to additions in quantum proceedings doesn't justify penalty imposition. Appeal allowed in assessee's favor. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Apr 2024 07:33:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751874 ITAT Rajkot held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified in two instances. First, regarding agricultural land purchase where the assessee agreed to addition but had shown contractual receipts, cash book entries, and disclosed the land in books and audit report. Second, concerning contractual receipts mismatch with Form 26AS involving only Rs. 1,05,827 against total receipts of Rs. 2,14,08,976. The tribunal found no mala fide intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars, ruling that mere agreement to additions in quantum proceedings doesn't justify penalty imposition. Appeal allowed in assessee's favor. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751874