Western Automobiles (India) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 17 December, 1976
In (2000) 246 ITR 218 (Ker) (supra) also following the decision in Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. and Am. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) this Court held that there may be several reasons for which the assessee may have offered an amount for addition, but that itself is not sufficient to infer concealment. It has not laid down as a rule of general application that whenever such is the case, penalty cannot be imposed. This Court held that on the contrary in such cases also the assessee is required to discharge the burden placed by the Explanation appended to Section 271(1)(c). In case an explanation is offered, the AO is to examine it, find out whether the assessee has been able to establish that there was no concealment.