https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468187 Penalty for concealment was sustained where the quantum addition for unexplained investment in house property had already been upheld and had attained finality. The assessee's objection that the addition rested only on unsigned papers and lacked corroboration was rejected because the earlier finding had accepted the investment as actually made. In the absence of any demonstrated defect in the penalty notice or other basis to disturb the concluded quantum finding, the explanation offered for penalty purposes was found to be of no assistance. The Tribunal therefore sustained the penalty under section 271(1)(c). en-us Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Apr 2026 08:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468187 Penalty for concealment was sustained where the quantum addition for unexplained investment in house property had already been upheld and had attained finality. The assessee's objection that the addition rested only on unsigned papers and lacked corroboration was rejected because the earlier finding had accepted the investment as actually made. In the absence of any demonstrated defect in the penalty notice or other basis to disturb the concluded quantum finding, the explanation offered for penalty purposes was found to be of no assistance. The Tribunal therefore sustained the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468187