https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26697 In penalty proceedings for late filing of a return, the assessee must explain facts within its special knowledge and the Revenue is not required to prove the negative at the outset. The Court treated section 106 of the Evidence Act as reflecting this burden-allocation principle and noted that any explanation offered may be assessed on a preponderance of probabilities. A fanciful or unsupported explanation can be rejected, and the assessee had not shown a compelling basis for delay on the facts described. The Tribunal's view that the Department had to establish absence of reasonable cause was prima facie erroneous, and the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(a) was held to raise a substantial question of law. en-us Mon, 09 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:14:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26697 In penalty proceedings for late filing of a return, the assessee must explain facts within its special knowledge and the Revenue is not required to prove the negative at the outset. The Court treated section 106 of the Evidence Act as reflecting this burden-allocation principle and noted that any explanation offered may be assessed on a preponderance of probabilities. A fanciful or unsupported explanation can be rejected, and the assessee had not shown a compelling basis for delay on the facts described. The Tribunal's view that the Department had to establish absence of reasonable cause was prima facie erroneous, and the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(a) was held to raise a substantial question of law. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26697