https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191930 A successor income-tax authority may continue penalty proceedings from the stage reached by the predecessor and impose penalty without a fresh notice or fresh explanation where the assessee had already been heard and did not seek reopening under section 5(7C) of the 1922 Act. For concealment under section 28(1)(c), an unsupported explanation for a cash credit, backed by vague entries and no evidence that the amount belonged to the wife, justified an inference of deliberate suppression. The penalty was therefore upheld as legally sustainable on both the procedural and substantive grounds stated. en-us Thu, 24 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 May 2017 17:54:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191930 A successor income-tax authority may continue penalty proceedings from the stage reached by the predecessor and impose penalty without a fresh notice or fresh explanation where the assessee had already been heard and did not seek reopening under section 5(7C) of the 1922 Act. For concealment under section 28(1)(c), an unsupported explanation for a cash credit, backed by vague entries and no evidence that the amount belonged to the wife, justified an inference of deliberate suppression. The penalty was therefore upheld as legally sustainable on both the procedural and substantive grounds stated. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191930