https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192922 Penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could be pursued against partners even after the firm had ceased to exist, following the Supreme Court ruling in C.A. Abraham. In concealment matters, penalty is penal in character, so the department bears the burden of proof on evidence meeting a criminal-like standard; assessment findings are relevant but not conclusive and do not operate as res judicata. Applying that approach, the material was insufficient to sustain penalty for the Rs. 30,000 credit, but it was sufficient for the Rs. 10,000 credit and the Rs. 39,500 understatement in building cost. en-us Mon, 30 Oct 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jul 2017 18:06:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192922 Penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could be pursued against partners even after the firm had ceased to exist, following the Supreme Court ruling in C.A. Abraham. In concealment matters, penalty is penal in character, so the department bears the burden of proof on evidence meeting a criminal-like standard; assessment findings are relevant but not conclusive and do not operate as res judicata. Applying that approach, the material was insufficient to sustain penalty for the Rs. 30,000 credit, but it was sufficient for the Rs. 10,000 credit and the Rs. 39,500 understatement in building cost. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Oct 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192922