https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9199 Penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could not be sustained merely because assessment findings showed an inflated purchase price for cotton. The penalty provision is penal in character, so the revenue had to prove conscious concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars with cogent material. Assessment additions were relevant and could furnish prima facie evidence, but they were not conclusive of concealment. On the facts, the Tribunal accepted that the excess payment had gone out of the assessee's coffers for the benefit of the managing agent through the seller, and the contract price variation was also capable of explanation by market movement and quality. The Madras HC held that penalty was not exigible. en-us Wed, 07 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9199 Penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could not be sustained merely because assessment findings showed an inflated purchase price for cotton. The penalty provision is penal in character, so the revenue had to prove conscious concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars with cogent material. Assessment additions were relevant and could furnish prima facie evidence, but they were not conclusive of concealment. On the facts, the Tribunal accepted that the excess payment had gone out of the assessee's coffers for the benefit of the managing agent through the seller, and the contract price variation was also capable of explanation by market movement and quality. The Madras HC held that penalty was not exigible. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9199