https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18578 After the Finance Act, 1964, the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) shifted the burden to the assessee where returned income was below 80% of assessed income, creating a rebuttable presumption of concealment or inaccurate particulars unless the shortfall was shown not to arise from fraud, gross neglect, or wilful neglect. The earlier rule in Anwar Ali, which placed the burden on the Revenue under the unamended law, was not applicable to this post-amendment regime. The Tribunal was therefore required to test the assessee's explanation against relevant and cogent material and make a clear finding on rebuttal of the presumption before cancelling penalty. en-us Thu, 30 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:54:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18578 After the Finance Act, 1964, the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) shifted the burden to the assessee where returned income was below 80% of assessed income, creating a rebuttable presumption of concealment or inaccurate particulars unless the shortfall was shown not to arise from fraud, gross neglect, or wilful neglect. The earlier rule in Anwar Ali, which placed the burden on the Revenue under the unamended law, was not applicable to this post-amendment regime. The Tribunal was therefore required to test the assessee's explanation against relevant and cogent material and make a clear finding on rebuttal of the presumption before cancelling penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18578