https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34230 HC upheld validity of s.271(1B) as not violative of Art.14, finding the legal position pre- and post-amendment substantially similar. The Assessing Officer must record a prima facie satisfaction-discernible from the assessment order-regarding concealment or inaccurate particulars before initiating penalty proceedings. The provision does not bar the assessee from adducing evidence to rebut that prima facie satisfaction, since penalty proceedings are not a continuation of assessment proceedings. Compliance with ss.274 and 275 is required. The retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2008 was held valid. en-us Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Sep 2025 16:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34230 HC upheld validity of s.271(1B) as not violative of Art.14, finding the legal position pre- and post-amendment substantially similar. The Assessing Officer must record a prima facie satisfaction-discernible from the assessment order-regarding concealment or inaccurate particulars before initiating penalty proceedings. The provision does not bar the assessee from adducing evidence to rebut that prima facie satisfaction, since penalty proceedings are not a continuation of assessment proceedings. Compliance with ss.274 and 275 is required. The retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2008 was held valid. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34230