https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37213 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was incorrect as the factual foundation for the penalty was not established. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the department to demonstrate concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Court held that the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee alone was insufficient to justify the penalty, citing various legal precedents supporting the principle that penalty proceedings require concrete evidence beyond the falsity of the assessee's explanation. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:11:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37213 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was incorrect as the factual foundation for the penalty was not established. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the department to demonstrate concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Court held that the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee alone was insufficient to justify the penalty, citing various legal precedents supporting the principle that penalty proceedings require concrete evidence beyond the falsity of the assessee's explanation. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37213