https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7439 Reopening of completed assessments was valid where the Income-tax Officer had information creating a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment, and a fuller enquiry disclosed material linking the escaped income to undisclosed sources; the reassessment was therefore upheld. Penalties under section 28(1)(c) were not sustainable because that provision requires proof of conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and a rejected explanation alone did not establish the statutory ingredients where the assessee had disclosed the primary facts. The reassessment stood, but the penalties were set aside for want of proof of deliberate concealment. en-us Fri, 05 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7439 Reopening of completed assessments was valid where the Income-tax Officer had information creating a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment, and a fuller enquiry disclosed material linking the escaped income to undisclosed sources; the reassessment was therefore upheld. Penalties under section 28(1)(c) were not sustainable because that provision requires proof of conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and a rejected explanation alone did not establish the statutory ingredients where the assessee had disclosed the primary facts. The reassessment stood, but the penalties were set aside for want of proof of deliberate concealment. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7439