https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18486 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, finding the Tribunal's decision to restore the penalty unjustified. The Tribunal's reliance on an unverified statement without cross-examination was deemed improper, and its failure to consider the conditions in Explanation 1 to u/s 271(1)(c) was noted. The Tribunal's insufficient reasoning for distinguishing case laws and evaluating the assessee's conduct led to the conclusion that the penalty restoration was unwarranted. The judgment emphasized the need for acceptable evidence in quasi-criminal penalty proceedings under u/s 271(1)(c). en-us Thu, 30 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:34:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18486 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, finding the Tribunal's decision to restore the penalty unjustified. The Tribunal's reliance on an unverified statement without cross-examination was deemed improper, and its failure to consider the conditions in Explanation 1 to u/s 271(1)(c) was noted. The Tribunal's insufficient reasoning for distinguishing case laws and evaluating the assessee's conduct led to the conclusion that the penalty restoration was unwarranted. The judgment emphasized the need for acceptable evidence in quasi-criminal penalty proceedings under u/s 271(1)(c). Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18486