https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461817 ITAT AGRA allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c). AO rejected book results u/s 145(3) and estimated profit at 12.5% of gross receipts, later reduced to 6% by CIT(A). ITAT held that AO failed to record specific satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and did not specify whether for concealment or inaccurate particulars. Neither AO nor CIT(A) computed quantum of inflated expenses or identified specific bogus vouchers with material evidence. Mere observation of cash expenses without crystallizing bogus expenditure insufficient to sustain penalty charges in estimation cases. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:03:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461817 ITAT AGRA allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c). AO rejected book results u/s 145(3) and estimated profit at 12.5% of gross receipts, later reduced to 6% by CIT(A). ITAT held that AO failed to record specific satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and did not specify whether for concealment or inaccurate particulars. Neither AO nor CIT(A) computed quantum of inflated expenses or identified specific bogus vouchers with material evidence. Mere observation of cash expenses without crystallizing bogus expenditure insufficient to sustain penalty charges in estimation cases. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461817