https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16221 HC upheld the Tribunal's deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) regarding alleged concealed income from toddy shop, theatre, jewellery business and minors' income. It held that under Explanation 1, additions represent concealed income only if no explanation is given, or the explanation is proved false, unsubstantiated or not bona fide. On the facts, the assessee had furnished plausible, bona fide explanations, not shown to be false by the Revenue. The presumption under section 132(4A) stood rebutted, particularly as assessments in respect of the jewellery business were made on another person. The Tribunal correctly applied the law on onus and burden of proof; no penalty was sustainable. en-us Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16221 HC upheld the Tribunal's deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) regarding alleged concealed income from toddy shop, theatre, jewellery business and minors' income. It held that under Explanation 1, additions represent concealed income only if no explanation is given, or the explanation is proved false, unsubstantiated or not bona fide. On the facts, the assessee had furnished plausible, bona fide explanations, not shown to be false by the Revenue. The presumption under section 132(4A) stood rebutted, particularly as assessments in respect of the jewellery business were made on another person. The Tribunal correctly applied the law on onus and burden of proof; no penalty was sustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16221