https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28162 The High Court upheld the application of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence to rebut the presumption of concealment or neglect. Additionally, the Court determined that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) had jurisdiction to levy the penalty, emphasizing that the validity of the reference to the IAC at the time it was made remains despite subsequent reductions in assessed income. The Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities on both issues, directing each party to bear their own costs due to the absence of representation for the assessee. en-us Mon, 11 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:32:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28162 The High Court upheld the application of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence to rebut the presumption of concealment or neglect. Additionally, the Court determined that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) had jurisdiction to levy the penalty, emphasizing that the validity of the reference to the IAC at the time it was made remains despite subsequent reductions in assessed income. The Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities on both issues, directing each party to bear their own costs due to the absence of representation for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 11 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28162