https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67294 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It emphasized the distinction in evidentiary standards between assessment and penalty proceedings, accepting the appellant's explanation regarding the undisclosed income from construction expenditure. The lack of concrete evidence to prove fraudulent intent or wilful neglect led to the cancellation of the penalty, highlighting the importance of a plausible explanation rather than irrefutable proof in penalty cases. en-us Sat, 18 Dec 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:48:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67294 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It emphasized the distinction in evidentiary standards between assessment and penalty proceedings, accepting the appellant's explanation regarding the undisclosed income from construction expenditure. The lack of concrete evidence to prove fraudulent intent or wilful neglect led to the cancellation of the penalty, highlighting the importance of a plausible explanation rather than irrefutable proof in penalty cases. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 18 Dec 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67294