https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790832 Penalty under section 271AAC(1) was sustained where unexplained investment had already been confirmed as income under section 69B on the basis of seized digital evidence, including an Excel sheet and WhatsApp communications treated as incriminating material showing on-money payment. The immunity proviso applied only if the income was included in the return and tax was paid under section 115BBE before the end of the relevant previous year, and those conditions were not met. The word "may" in section 271AAC(1) did not create an unfettered discretion to ignore established undisclosed income, and pendency of a further quantum challenge did not displace the penalty basis. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2026 10:14:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790832 Penalty under section 271AAC(1) was sustained where unexplained investment had already been confirmed as income under section 69B on the basis of seized digital evidence, including an Excel sheet and WhatsApp communications treated as incriminating material showing on-money payment. The immunity proviso applied only if the income was included in the return and tax was paid under section 115BBE before the end of the relevant previous year, and those conditions were not met. The word "may" in section 271AAC(1) did not create an unfettered discretion to ignore established undisclosed income, and pendency of a further quantum challenge did not displace the penalty basis. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790832