https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762981 The ITAT Delhi upheld the penalty under Section 271AAB but reduced it from 30% to 10%. The tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that no undisclosed income existed, finding that unexplained liabilities and unrecorded expenditures constituted undisclosed income. The court dismissed arguments regarding procedural defects in the show cause notice, noting that adequate opportunity was provided. However, the tribunal acknowledged a legislative anomaly where assesses who admit undisclosed income during search face higher penalties (30%) compared to those who remain silent (10%), creating an illogical outcome where cooperation results in harsher treatment. en-us Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:15:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762981 The ITAT Delhi upheld the penalty under Section 271AAB but reduced it from 30% to 10%. The tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that no undisclosed income existed, finding that unexplained liabilities and unrecorded expenditures constituted undisclosed income. The court dismissed arguments regarding procedural defects in the show cause notice, noting that adequate opportunity was provided. However, the tribunal acknowledged a legislative anomaly where assesses who admit undisclosed income during search face higher penalties (30%) compared to those who remain silent (10%), creating an illogical outcome where cooperation results in harsher treatment. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762981