https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38125 In reference jurisdiction, the High Court will not interfere with a Tribunal's factual cancellation of penalty unless the view is perverse, based on irrelevant considerations, or impossible on the material before it. Penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 requires proof of concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars; where the department fails to establish the offence and the Tribunal adopts a possible view on the evidence, its finding must be upheld. On the facts, the Tribunal had given the assessee the benefit of the doubt, and its cancellation of penalty was held not to warrant interference. en-us Fri, 12 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:50:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38125 In reference jurisdiction, the High Court will not interfere with a Tribunal's factual cancellation of penalty unless the view is perverse, based on irrelevant considerations, or impossible on the material before it. Penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 requires proof of concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars; where the department fails to establish the offence and the Tribunal adopts a possible view on the evidence, its finding must be upheld. On the facts, the Tribunal had given the assessee the benefit of the doubt, and its cancellation of penalty was held not to warrant interference. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38125