https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39081 The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction assumed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, partially accepted the assessee's explanation regarding deposits, and did not impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to the lack of conclusive proof of concealment of income. The Tribunal clarified that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) applied prospectively, not retrospectively, and determined that the original return filed before April 1, 1964, was relevant for penalty purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and its Explanation were not applicable for the assessment year in question. en-us Fri, 22 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:50:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39081 The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction assumed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, partially accepted the assessee's explanation regarding deposits, and did not impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to the lack of conclusive proof of concealment of income. The Tribunal clarified that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) applied prospectively, not retrospectively, and determined that the original return filed before April 1, 1964, was relevant for penalty purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and its Explanation were not applicable for the assessment year in question. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39081