https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326925 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income particulars and inaccurate particulars was not justified. The department failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of mala fide intentions by the assessee. Emphasizing the burden of proof on the revenue department in penalty proceedings, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of concrete evidence to establish concealment or inaccurate particulars. As such, the penalty was set aside, considering factors such as the lapse of time, statutory requirements, and prior taxation on the disputed amount. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326925 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income particulars and inaccurate particulars was not justified. The department failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of mala fide intentions by the assessee. Emphasizing the burden of proof on the revenue department in penalty proceedings, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of concrete evidence to establish concealment or inaccurate particulars. As such, the penalty was set aside, considering factors such as the lapse of time, statutory requirements, and prior taxation on the disputed amount. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326925