https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28440 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh clarified the burden of proof in penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized that the assessee must demonstrate the absence of fraud or neglect when the disclosed income significantly varies from the assessed income. The court disagreed with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's interpretation and directed a reassessment, highlighting the importance of the burden of proof under the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) in cases of concealment. en-us Wed, 28 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:51:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28440 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh clarified the burden of proof in penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized that the assessee must demonstrate the absence of fraud or neglect when the disclosed income significantly varies from the assessed income. The court disagreed with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's interpretation and directed a reassessment, highlighting the importance of the burden of proof under the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) in cases of concealment. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28440