https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35656 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not sustainable where the assessment additions did not, by themselves, prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that the alleged receipt from one source was not proved, a loan could not be treated as income, another receipt was not taxable, and the excess expenditure and bank credits were not shown to be revenue income. Because penalty proceedings are penal in character, the department had to establish conscious concealment or deliberate inaccuracy, and it failed to show that the amount assessed as income from undisclosed sources was income of a revenue nature. en-us Tue, 21 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:48:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35656 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not sustainable where the assessment additions did not, by themselves, prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that the alleged receipt from one source was not proved, a loan could not be treated as income, another receipt was not taxable, and the excess expenditure and bank credits were not shown to be revenue income. Because penalty proceedings are penal in character, the department had to establish conscious concealment or deliberate inaccuracy, and it failed to show that the amount assessed as income from undisclosed sources was income of a revenue nature. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35656