https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281926 Gold jewellery found and seized during search was treated as unexplained investment where the assessee failed to disclose the source at the search stage and in the return filed in response to notice under section 153C. A later revised computation was filed only after notice under section 142(1), and the explanation based on VDIS, gifts and stridhan was rejected for lack of supporting evidence, including absence of wealth-tax returns. The explanation was treated as an afterthought, and the penalty principle was applied on the basis that concealment penalty does not require proof of mens rea. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained and the first appellate authority's deletion was set aside. en-us Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jul 2019 07:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281926 Gold jewellery found and seized during search was treated as unexplained investment where the assessee failed to disclose the source at the search stage and in the return filed in response to notice under section 153C. A later revised computation was filed only after notice under section 142(1), and the explanation based on VDIS, gifts and stridhan was rejected for lack of supporting evidence, including absence of wealth-tax returns. The explanation was treated as an afterthought, and the penalty principle was applied on the basis that concealment penalty does not require proof of mens rea. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained and the first appellate authority's deletion was set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281926