https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26904 The article explains that under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), concealment may be presumed once the provision is attracted, shifting the burden to the assessee to rebut the presumption by showing absence of fraud or gross or wilful neglect. It also notes the Revenue's contention that the Tribunal erred in insisting on positive evidence of concealment before cancelling penalty. The Allahabad HC treated these issues, including the levy or cancellation of penalty and the assessee's burden of rebuttal, as questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order and held them fit for reference under section 256(2). en-us Wed, 14 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:13:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26904 The article explains that under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), concealment may be presumed once the provision is attracted, shifting the burden to the assessee to rebut the presumption by showing absence of fraud or gross or wilful neglect. It also notes the Revenue's contention that the Tribunal erred in insisting on positive evidence of concealment before cancelling penalty. The Allahabad HC treated these issues, including the levy or cancellation of penalty and the assessee's burden of rebuttal, as questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order and held them fit for reference under section 256(2). Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26904