https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17923 HC held that penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was validly imposed on the assessee-firm in respect of undisclosed stock of barley. The assessee's explanation that the stock belonged to a third party was found unsubstantiated, lacking cogent and reliable evidence of cultivation or delivery. Applying clause (B) of Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), the HC held that the statutory presumption of concealment stood unrebutted, as the assessee neither discharged the shifted burden of proof nor established bona fides or full disclosure of material facts. The HC set aside the Tribunal's order deleting penalty and answered the question in favour of Revenue. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 14 Dec 2025 23:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17923 HC held that penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was validly imposed on the assessee-firm in respect of undisclosed stock of barley. The assessee's explanation that the stock belonged to a third party was found unsubstantiated, lacking cogent and reliable evidence of cultivation or delivery. Applying clause (B) of Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), the HC held that the statutory presumption of concealment stood unrebutted, as the assessee neither discharged the shifted burden of proof nor established bona fides or full disclosure of material facts. The HC set aside the Tribunal's order deleting penalty and answered the question in favour of Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17923