https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37015 The court held that the prima facie satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings must be that of the ITO. However, it disagreed with the Tribunal's view that the IAC could not rely on the Explanation if the ITO had not done so. The court determined that the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) enacts a rule of evidence, allowing the IAC to apply it during penalty proceedings. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the revenue, finding the penalty levied by the IAC to be sustainable. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner. en-us Mon, 29 Aug 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:23:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37015 The court held that the prima facie satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings must be that of the ITO. However, it disagreed with the Tribunal's view that the IAC could not rely on the Explanation if the ITO had not done so. The court determined that the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) enacts a rule of evidence, allowing the IAC to apply it during penalty proceedings. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the revenue, finding the penalty levied by the IAC to be sustainable. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Aug 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37015