https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67089 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) in a case involving undisclosed income from unexplained investments. Despite a reduction by the AAC, discrepancies in income disclosure and contumacious conduct led to the confirmation of the penalty. The burden of proof on the assessee to show lack of fraudulent intent was not met, resulting in the penalty being upheld based on the totality of facts and the applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). en-us Tue, 31 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Mar 2011 10:30:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67089 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) in a case involving undisclosed income from unexplained investments. Despite a reduction by the AAC, discrepancies in income disclosure and contumacious conduct led to the confirmation of the penalty. The burden of proof on the assessee to show lack of fraudulent intent was not met, resulting in the penalty being upheld based on the totality of facts and the applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 31 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67089