https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38612 The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner related to the amount of Rs. 28,742. The court found that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was not applicable in this case, as the revised return filed by the assessee was valid under section 139(5) of the Act. The burden of proof in penalty proceedings lies with the department, and inconsistency between the initiation and imposition of the penalty deprived the assessee of a reasonable opportunity to defend against the penalty. The penalty order was deemed unsustainable, and the department's appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:33:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38612 The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner related to the amount of Rs. 28,742. The court found that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was not applicable in this case, as the revised return filed by the assessee was valid under section 139(5) of the Act. The burden of proof in penalty proceedings lies with the department, and inconsistency between the initiation and imposition of the penalty deprived the assessee of a reasonable opportunity to defend against the penalty. The penalty order was deemed unsustainable, and the department's appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38612