CIT v. Vasantha Anirudhan.( Smt.) (2018) 401 ITR 279 /163 DTR 279/ 302 CTR 257 (Ker) (HC)

S. 271(1)( c ): Penalty — concealment-Notice need not specifically mention Explanation- Addition as unexplained investment- Levy of penalty was held to be justified [ S.159(6) ]

Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that , Notice need not specifically mention Explanation. As regards addition as unexplained investment as the assesse has not produced any material to substantiate the claim , levy of penalty was held to be justified .Court also observed that present respondent being a legal heir of the assesse , recovery would be made only to the extent of the estate of the assesse capable of meeting the liability as provided in S. 159(6) of the Act. (AY. 1990-91)