https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786070 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for unexplained cash bank deposits is considered against the principle that penalty and quantum proceedings are separate and independent; therefore an absence of appeal against quantum does not bar adducing explanations in penalty proceedings. The assessee consistently maintained deposits were contributions from members and produced documentary support; neither the AO nor the CIT(A) made specific findings on that explanation. The matter is remitted to the assessing officer to examine the furnished evidence and decide the penalty afresh, resulting in allowance of the assessee's appeal on the penalty issue. en-us Tue, 03 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Feb 2026 09:16:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786070 Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for unexplained cash bank deposits is considered against the principle that penalty and quantum proceedings are separate and independent; therefore an absence of appeal against quantum does not bar adducing explanations in penalty proceedings. The assessee consistently maintained deposits were contributions from members and produced documentary support; neither the AO nor the CIT(A) made specific findings on that explanation. The matter is remitted to the assessing officer to examine the furnished evidence and decide the penalty afresh, resulting in allowance of the assessee's appeal on the penalty issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 03 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786070