https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9313 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained only where the department proved, by cogent material, concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. An assessment addition, or rejection of the assessee's explanation as false, was not by itself enough to establish the penal charge. The material had to show both that the disputed amount was income and that the assessee consciously concealed it or deliberately gave inaccurate particulars. On the stated facts, the explanation that the stock figure shown to the bank was inflated was not disproved by sufficient penal evidence, so penalty was not legally imposable. en-us Mon, 25 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9313 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained only where the department proved, by cogent material, concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. An assessment addition, or rejection of the assessee's explanation as false, was not by itself enough to establish the penal charge. The material had to show both that the disputed amount was income and that the assessee consciously concealed it or deliberately gave inaccurate particulars. On the stated facts, the explanation that the stock figure shown to the bank was inflated was not disproved by sufficient penal evidence, so penalty was not legally imposable. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 25 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9313