https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465289 In a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act concerning penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 1989-90, the HC held that the Tribunal erred in cancelling the penalty solely on the ground that concealment was not independently proved. The HC ruled that, in view of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), once the returned loss is rejected, estimated income is substituted and discrepancies are found, the burden shifts to the assessee to offer a credible explanation and establish absence of concealment. As the Tribunal had not applied this statutory presumption, its order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. en-us Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Dec 2025 14:19:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465289 In a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act concerning penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 1989-90, the HC held that the Tribunal erred in cancelling the penalty solely on the ground that concealment was not independently proved. The HC ruled that, in view of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), once the returned loss is rejected, estimated income is substituted and discrepancies are found, the burden shifts to the assessee to offer a credible explanation and establish absence of concealment. As the Tribunal had not applied this statutory presumption, its order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465289