https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21500 Where returned income was more than 20 per cent below assessed income, the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) created a rebuttable presumption of concealment and placed the burden on the assessee to prove that the shortfall did not arise from fraud or gross or wilful neglect. A revised disclosure did not by itself shift the burden to the Revenue, especially where the voluntary disclosure scheme was unavailable because the required tax was not paid. The analysis states that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the Explanation and in placing the onus on the Department, and that the penalty remained sustainable because the assessee produced no cogent material to rebut the statutory presumption. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:17:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21500 Where returned income was more than 20 per cent below assessed income, the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) created a rebuttable presumption of concealment and placed the burden on the assessee to prove that the shortfall did not arise from fraud or gross or wilful neglect. A revised disclosure did not by itself shift the burden to the Revenue, especially where the voluntary disclosure scheme was unavailable because the required tax was not paid. The analysis states that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the Explanation and in placing the onus on the Department, and that the penalty remained sustainable because the assessee produced no cogent material to rebut the statutory presumption. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21500