https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461058 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because the Assessing Officer recorded initiation on concealment of income, but the penalty order was ultimately based on furnishing inaccurate particulars. The material shift between the recorded satisfaction and the ground of levy broke the required consistency in the basis of the penalty, and the default could not be changed from concealment to inaccurate particulars at the penalty stage. On that footing, the penalty was deleted and the revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:27:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461058 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because the Assessing Officer recorded initiation on concealment of income, but the penalty order was ultimately based on furnishing inaccurate particulars. The material shift between the recorded satisfaction and the ground of levy broke the required consistency in the basis of the penalty, and the default could not be changed from concealment to inaccurate particulars at the penalty stage. On that footing, the penalty was deleted and the revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461058