https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169541 Where the assessee described a receipt as a deposit, the income-tax authorities could rely on the surrounding material to treat it as concealed income and sustain penalty for concealment. The finding was supported not only by the assessment record but also by the absence of the depositors' names in the books, the assessee's false and unsatisfactory explanation, failure to produce supporting material within his special knowledge, and the defective state of the accounts. Penalty proceedings under section 28(1)(c) did not require a higher standard of proof than the materials already justified for assessment purposes, and the same material could establish inaccurate particulars or concealment. en-us Thu, 15 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:09:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169541 Where the assessee described a receipt as a deposit, the income-tax authorities could rely on the surrounding material to treat it as concealed income and sustain penalty for concealment. The finding was supported not only by the assessment record but also by the absence of the depositors' names in the books, the assessee's false and unsatisfactory explanation, failure to produce supporting material within his special knowledge, and the defective state of the accounts. Penalty proceedings under section 28(1)(c) did not require a higher standard of proof than the materials already justified for assessment purposes, and the same material could establish inaccurate particulars or concealment. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169541