https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28312 The court held that the Tribunal erred in canceling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) creates a presumption of concealment if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income, which the assessee must rebut by proving the absence of fraud or neglect. The Tribunal's approach of giving the benefit of doubt based on estimates was deemed legally incorrect. As the assessee failed to prove the absence of fraud or neglect, the penalty was upheld in favor of the Commissioner, who was awarded costs of Rs. 250. en-us Fri, 06 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:49:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28312 The court held that the Tribunal erred in canceling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) creates a presumption of concealment if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income, which the assessee must rebut by proving the absence of fraud or neglect. The Tribunal's approach of giving the benefit of doubt based on estimates was deemed legally incorrect. As the assessee failed to prove the absence of fraud or neglect, the penalty was upheld in favor of the Commissioner, who was awarded costs of Rs. 250. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28312