https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467142 For penalty under section 271(1)(c) the ITAT held that an assessing officer's satisfaction need only be discernible from the assessment order and may rest on documented enquiries showing non genuineness of transactions; the assessment order here evidenced due application of mind and valid satisfaction, outcome against the assessee. However, the Tribunal found the penalty order defective because it used conjunctive/ambiguous language without a clear positive finding whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars; that lack of specificity vitiated the penalty order and led to its quashing, outcome for the assessee. en-us Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Mar 2026 11:03:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467142 For penalty under section 271(1)(c) the ITAT held that an assessing officer's satisfaction need only be discernible from the assessment order and may rest on documented enquiries showing non genuineness of transactions; the assessment order here evidenced due application of mind and valid satisfaction, outcome against the assessee. However, the Tribunal found the penalty order defective because it used conjunctive/ambiguous language without a clear positive finding whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars; that lack of specificity vitiated the penalty order and led to its quashing, outcome for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467142