https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61466 The Tribunal allowed two appeals by sister concerns in the construction industry, challenging penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for discrepancies in income assessment. The rejection of book results due to lack of vouchers was deemed insufficient to prove income concealment, as no deliberate act was shown. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence over mere suspicion, leading to the deletion of both penalties. The judgment underscored the importance of substantiated proof in establishing charges of income concealment, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessees. en-us Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:59:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61466 The Tribunal allowed two appeals by sister concerns in the construction industry, challenging penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for discrepancies in income assessment. The rejection of book results due to lack of vouchers was deemed insufficient to prove income concealment, as no deliberate act was shown. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence over mere suspicion, leading to the deletion of both penalties. The judgment underscored the importance of substantiated proof in establishing charges of income concealment, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessees. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61466