https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285381 Penalty under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is penal in character, so the revenue must affirmatively prove concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A mere rejection of the assessee's explanation in the quantum assessment does not, by itself, establish wilful suppression for penalty purposes. On the facts noted, the assessee's explanation for the credit entry was plausible and the record did not contain material sufficient to show that it was false or that concealment had been proved. The penalty was therefore not validly imposed, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 04 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jan 2020 15:31:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285381 Penalty under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is penal in character, so the revenue must affirmatively prove concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A mere rejection of the assessee's explanation in the quantum assessment does not, by itself, establish wilful suppression for penalty purposes. On the facts noted, the assessee's explanation for the credit entry was plausible and the record did not contain material sufficient to show that it was false or that concealment had been proved. The penalty was therefore not validly imposed, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 04 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285381