Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income was ...

Penalty on concealment deleted due to lack of evidence of deliberate underestimation.

Case Laws Income Tax

November 25, 2024

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income was challenged. The Assessing Officer (AO) alleged that the assessee understated turnover and concealed income based on the difference between the original return and the revised return filed pursuant to a notice u/s 148 after a survey. However, the AO failed to record the original returned income and the revised returned income in the assessment order or penalty order, making it impossible to determine the concealed amount. The AO merely made a bald statement about understated turnover without substantiating the deliberate underestimation of income. Mere projected financials found during the survey and recorded statements cannot justify the penalty unless the assessee deliberately suppressed income. The Appellate Tribunal held that since the AO failed to demonstrate deliberate underestimation of income by the assessee, the inference of concealment was unjustified. Consequently, the penalty was deleted in favor of the assessee.

View Source

← Previous

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income was ...

Penalty on concealment deleted due to lack of evidence of deliberate underestimation.

Case Laws Income Tax

November 25, 2024

You may also like:

Undervaluation of imported goods - Patchouli Oil - The CESTAT found that the rejection of the declared value lacked legal basis and was unsupported by evidence. The...

Penalty imposed by the Settlement Commission u/s 271(1)(c) - The petitioner argued against the penalty, citing lack of mens rea and the absence of evidence showing...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - adjustment made u/s 92CA - penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the adjustment made u/s 92CA is not...

The assessee was penalized u/s 271(1)(c) for addition of sale consideration due to lack of vouchers. The CIT(A) partly confirmed the addition for want of vouchers. The...

Voluntary surrender of income by assessee cannot be considered concealment. AO failed to prove concealment, merely concluded voluntary surrender as concealment....

Misclassification and Wrongful Claim of MEIS Benefits - Exports of quilts containing cotton/polyester - Levy of penalties - The CESTAT found the appellant guilty of...

Penalty imposed u/s 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal export by arranging lorries. Lack of admissible evidence showing knowledge of goods...

Smuggling - illegal importation of the seized gold - Confiscation of the gold and Indian currency - The Tribunal found no evidence linking the seized Indian currency to...

The ITAT held that alleged documents of bank account with HSBC London were genuine as the assessee accepted and revised the return. Absence of incriminating material in...

Penalty u/s 271D for violation of Section 269SS was challenged. ITAT held that where assessee received sale consideration for immovable property in cash exceeding Rs....

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for under reporting income - defective notice - The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the AO did not apply his mind...

Central Excise demands cannot be sustained solely based on confessional statements without corroborative documentary evidence. Retracted affidavits cannot be relied upon...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowances in the quantum assessment order - whether any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars proved? - Tribunal directs...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Appellate Tribunal observed that the appellant, during reassessment proceedings, had filed their return of income but failed to provide...

Disallowance of commission expenses due to lack of evidence regarding services rendered. Valuation of construction work-in-progress issue dismissed as academic....

Quick Updates: