https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37202 Where returned income is less than eighty per cent of assessed income, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption of concealment and shifts the burden to the assessee to rebut it with a satisfactory explanation showing absence of fraud or gross or wilful neglect. The enquiry must focus on whether the explanation is acceptable and whether it displaces the statutory presumption. The Tribunal erred by treating the case as turning on proof of deliberate defiance of law alone and by not examining the explanation in the manner required by the Explanation, so the penalty issue required reconsideration. en-us Wed, 18 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:53:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37202 Where returned income is less than eighty per cent of assessed income, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption of concealment and shifts the burden to the assessee to rebut it with a satisfactory explanation showing absence of fraud or gross or wilful neglect. The enquiry must focus on whether the explanation is acceptable and whether it displaces the statutory presumption. The Tribunal erred by treating the case as turning on proof of deliberate defiance of law alone and by not examining the explanation in the manner required by the Explanation, so the penalty issue required reconsideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37202