https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770244 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not leviable where the quantum addition for alleged bogus purchases was sustained only on an estimated percentage basis. Because the assessment and appellate findings rested on estimation rather than direct evidence of concealed income or false particulars, concealment could not be presumed automatically under Explanation 1. In the absence of independent material showing deliberate suppression or inaccurate particulars, the Tribunal applied the settled principle that estimated additions do not, by themselves, justify penalty, and the deletion of penalty was upheld. en-us Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 May 2025 09:13:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770244 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not leviable where the quantum addition for alleged bogus purchases was sustained only on an estimated percentage basis. Because the assessment and appellate findings rested on estimation rather than direct evidence of concealed income or false particulars, concealment could not be presumed automatically under Explanation 1. In the absence of independent material showing deliberate suppression or inaccurate particulars, the Tribunal applied the settled principle that estimated additions do not, by themselves, justify penalty, and the deletion of penalty was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770244