https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71091 Penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) was upheld because the assessee failed to substantiate the explanation for the disputed addition and did not prove bona fides with full disclosure of material facts. The claimed sources of savings from marriage gifts, interest from cultivators, and agricultural income were rejected for want of supporting evidence, and the quantum addition had already been sustained. Applying Explanation 1B, the unexplained amount was deemed concealed income, making cancellation of penalty unsustainable and restoring the penalty in favour of Revenue. en-us Wed, 24 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:23:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71091 Penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) was upheld because the assessee failed to substantiate the explanation for the disputed addition and did not prove bona fides with full disclosure of material facts. The claimed sources of savings from marriage gifts, interest from cultivators, and agricultural income were rejected for want of supporting evidence, and the quantum addition had already been sustained. Applying Explanation 1B, the unexplained amount was deemed concealed income, making cancellation of penalty unsustainable and restoring the penalty in favour of Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71091