https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12885 The Delhi High Court considered whether levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) was justified and whether the assessee's explanation for a cash credit gave rise to a referable question of law under section 256(2). The assessment authorities and the Tribunal found that the source of the loan was not properly proved and rejected the explanation on the material before them. The Court treated the acceptability of that explanation as essentially a question of fact, and because the lower forums had already reached a factual conclusion adverse to the assessee, it found no referable question of law. en-us Mon, 14 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2009 17:47:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12885 The Delhi High Court considered whether levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) was justified and whether the assessee's explanation for a cash credit gave rise to a referable question of law under section 256(2). The assessment authorities and the Tribunal found that the source of the loan was not properly proved and rejected the explanation on the material before them. The Court treated the acceptability of that explanation as essentially a question of fact, and because the lower forums had already reached a factual conclusion adverse to the assessee, it found no referable question of law. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 14 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12885