https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9296 The court interpreted the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income, the person is deemed to have concealed income unless they prove no fraud or neglect. The burden of proof regarding fraud or neglect lies with the assessee, who can discharge it using available material. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee was not liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was upheld, ruling in favor of the assessee and awarding costs to be paid by the Commissioner. en-us Wed, 07 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9296 The court interpreted the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income, the person is deemed to have concealed income unless they prove no fraud or neglect. The burden of proof regarding fraud or neglect lies with the assessee, who can discharge it using available material. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee was not liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was upheld, ruling in favor of the assessee and awarding costs to be paid by the Commissioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9296