https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9323 Penalty for concealment cannot be sustained merely because the assessee failed to prove unexplained cash credits as borrowed amounts. In proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the department must adduce cogent material showing that the disputed receipts were taxable income and that the assessee deliberately concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. A rejected explanation, or the mere fact that assessment additions survived, is insufficient by itself. On the material before the Tribunal, there was no independent evidence of conscious concealment, so penalty was held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 17 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9323 Penalty for concealment cannot be sustained merely because the assessee failed to prove unexplained cash credits as borrowed amounts. In proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the department must adduce cogent material showing that the disputed receipts were taxable income and that the assessee deliberately concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. A rejected explanation, or the mere fact that assessment additions survived, is insufficient by itself. On the material before the Tribunal, there was no independent evidence of conscious concealment, so penalty was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9323