https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8972 Penalty for concealment was justified where the Tribunal found clear evidence of printed bill forms being used, business being carried on despite denial, unrepudiated witness evidence, and deliberate omission and suppression of sales. The failure to produce vouchers and records supported an inference of an attempt to defeat detection, and the assessee's explanation was rejected on the basis of the full materials, not in isolation. On those factual findings, the departmental burden was treated as discharged and the concealment-based penalty under section 28(1)(c) was upheld. en-us Fri, 12 Jan 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8972 Penalty for concealment was justified where the Tribunal found clear evidence of printed bill forms being used, business being carried on despite denial, unrepudiated witness evidence, and deliberate omission and suppression of sales. The failure to produce vouchers and records supported an inference of an attempt to defeat detection, and the assessee's explanation was rejected on the basis of the full materials, not in isolation. On those factual findings, the departmental burden was treated as discharged and the concealment-based penalty under section 28(1)(c) was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Jan 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8972