https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5375 The Supreme Court clarified that the absence of mens rea is not a requirement for imposing penalties under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, distinguishing it from section 271(1)(c). The burden of proof initially lies with the Department to show the absence of reasonable cause, with the assessee then required to demonstrate reasonable cause. Relying on precedents like Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT, the Court allowed the appeals, overturning the High Court and Tribunal decisions, and confirming the penalties imposed by the assessing authority for belated filing of returns. en-us Tue, 28 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5375 The Supreme Court clarified that the absence of mens rea is not a requirement for imposing penalties under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, distinguishing it from section 271(1)(c). The burden of proof initially lies with the Department to show the absence of reasonable cause, with the assessee then required to demonstrate reasonable cause. Relying on precedents like Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT, the Court allowed the appeals, overturning the High Court and Tribunal decisions, and confirming the penalties imposed by the assessing authority for belated filing of returns. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5375