Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in penalty proceedings under the income-tax law, the revenue had discharged the burden of proving concealment of income in relation to fixed deposit receipts standing in the name of the assessee's wife, so that no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.
Analysis: Penalty proceedings under section 28(1)(c) were treated as quasi-criminal, placing the burden on the department to establish concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The material on record showed that one fixed deposit receipt had been reflected in the assessee's balance-sheet, both receipts had been included in wealth-tax returns as assets of the assessee, there was no proof of a valid gift to the wife of the coparcener, and the amounts were later used for the assessee's benefit. These circumstances were sufficient to show that the deposits belonged to the assessee and that the income from them was taxable in its hands. Since the factual foundation for concealment was supported by material evidence, the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in holding that no referable question of law arose.
Conclusion: The burden of proving concealment was fully discharged by the revenue, and the refusal to make a reference was correct.