https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28465 Where returned income fell below the statutory threshold under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, a rebuttable presumption of concealment or gross or wilful neglect arose against the assessee. The authority was required to apply that presumption first and then examine whether the assessee had rebutted it by showing absence of fraud or gross or wilful neglect. Because the penalty was cancelled without properly undertaking that exercise, the cancellation could not stand and the penalty issue had to be reconsidered in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 16 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:09:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28465 Where returned income fell below the statutory threshold under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, a rebuttable presumption of concealment or gross or wilful neglect arose against the assessee. The authority was required to apply that presumption first and then examine whether the assessee had rebutted it by showing absence of fraud or gross or wilful neglect. Because the penalty was cancelled without properly undertaking that exercise, the cancellation could not stand and the penalty issue had to be reconsidered in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28465