https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181321 The High Court found that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was not justified as the Assessing Officer did not establish a deliberate act of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Court emphasized that the imposition of penalty requires positive satisfaction, which was lacking in this case. Additionally, the Court held that the burden to disclose the presumption under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was not met by the assessee, but the authorities failed to prove deliberate concealment. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, quashing the orders of the Tribunal and the Assessing Officer. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:51:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181321 The High Court found that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was not justified as the Assessing Officer did not establish a deliberate act of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Court emphasized that the imposition of penalty requires positive satisfaction, which was lacking in this case. Additionally, the Court held that the burden to disclose the presumption under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was not met by the assessee, but the authorities failed to prove deliberate concealment. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, quashing the orders of the Tribunal and the Assessing Officer. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181321