https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56900 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 13,000, due to the assessee's failure to provide evidence regarding undisclosed deposits. The CIT (A) justified the penalty under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), emphasizing the onus on the appellant to prove absence of fraud or neglect. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument on the deleted provision's applicability but agreed to recalculate the penalty based on tax sought to be evaded. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed, directing reassessment of the penalty amount by the ITO. en-us Mon, 17 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:00:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56900 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 13,000, due to the assessee's failure to provide evidence regarding undisclosed deposits. The CIT (A) justified the penalty under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), emphasizing the onus on the appellant to prove absence of fraud or neglect. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument on the deleted provision's applicability but agreed to recalculate the penalty based on tax sought to be evaded. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed, directing reassessment of the penalty amount by the ITO. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56900