https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37876 The High Court held that the burden of proof in penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act shifted to the assessee post the 1964 amendment. The court emphasized that if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income, the burden is on the assessee to prove the absence of fraud or wilful neglect. The Tribunal's reliance on a previous case without considering the amended provision was deemed erroneous. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Income Tax Department, highlighting the necessity for the assessee to demonstrate the lack of fraud or wilful neglect in such cases. en-us Wed, 19 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:35:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37876 The High Court held that the burden of proof in penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act shifted to the assessee post the 1964 amendment. The court emphasized that if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income, the burden is on the assessee to prove the absence of fraud or wilful neglect. The Tribunal's reliance on a previous case without considering the amended provision was deemed erroneous. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Income Tax Department, highlighting the necessity for the assessee to demonstrate the lack of fraud or wilful neglect in such cases. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37876