10 in D M Manasvi v. Commissioner of Income Tax

3 SCC 207Supreme Court of India1973#6761 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 132Section 275(1)(c)Section 269SSSection 271DSection 273BSection 129Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 271dasection 275(1)(c)section 269stpenalty under section 271dsection 275penalty proceedings initiatedsection 271dsection 3(1)section 269section 129section 269ss

Judgments citing 10 in D M Manasvi v. Commissioner of Income Tax

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1257/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…ew. That apart, a perusal of the said judgment does not show that there was any reference made by the ITO to the competent authority, unlike in the case at hand. Further the following observations in para 10 in D M Manasvi vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra… “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the matter had been referred to him under section 274(2) of t…

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1256/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…ew. That apart, a perusal of the said judgment does not show that there was any reference made by the ITO to the competent authority, unlike in the case at hand. Further the following observations in para 10 in D M Manasvi vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra… “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the matter had been referred to him under section 274(2) of t…

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1255/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 11Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…ew. That apart, a perusal of the said judgment does not show that there was any reference made by the ITO to the competent authority, unlike in the case at hand. Further the following observations in para 10 in D M Manasvi vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra… “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the matter had been referred to him under section 274(2) of t…

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2172/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

…ew. That apart, a perusal of the said judgment does not show that there was any reference made by the ITO to the competent authority, unlike in the case at hand. Further the following observations in para 10 in D M Manasvi vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra. “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the matter had been referred to him under section 274(2) of…

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2 , HYDERABAD

ITA 2171/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 269OSection 269SSection 271D

…ew. That apart, a perusal of the said judgment does not show that there was any reference made by the ITO to the competent authority, unlike in the case at hand. Further the following observations in para 10 in D M Manasvi vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra. "We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the matter had been referred to him under section 274(2) of t…

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2165/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2164, 2165, 2171 & 2172/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22) M/S. Msn Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Additional Cit Hyderabad Central Range-2 Pan:Aadcm6283F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, All Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Ys 2018-19 To 2021-22 Respectively. Since, Identical Issues Have Been Raised By The Assessee In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 271DSection 274

…ew. That apart, a perusal of the said judgment does not show that there was any reference made by the ITO to the competent authority, unlike in the case at hand. Further the following observations in para 10 in D M Manasvi vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra. “We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the matter had been referred to him under section 274(2) of…

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

ITA 2164/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 269Section 269OSection 269SSection 271D

…ew. That apart, a perusal of the said judgment does not show that there was any reference made by the ITO to the competent authority, unlike in the case at hand. Further the following observations in para 10 in D M Manasvi vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra. "We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the matter had been referred to him under section 274(2) of t…

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/HYD/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

…ew. That apart, a perusal of the said judgment does not show that there was any reference made by the ITO to the competent authority, unlike in the case at hand. Further the following observations in para 10 in D M Manasvi v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra. _"We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the matter had been referred to him under section 274(2) of…

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

…ew. That apart, a perusal of the said judgment does not show that there was any reference made by the ITO to the competent authority, unlike in the case at hand. Further the following observations in para 10 in D M Manasvi v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra. _"We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the matter had been referred to him under section 274(2) of…

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 576/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

…ew. That apart, a perusal of the said judgment does not show that there was any reference made by the ITO to the competent authority, unlike in the case at hand. Further the following observations in para 10 in D M Manasvi v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra. _"We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the matter had been referred to him under section 274(2) of…

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

…ew. That apart, a perusal of the said judgment does not show that there was any reference made by the ITO to the competent authority, unlike in the case at hand. Further the following observations in para 10 in D M Manasvi v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 3 SCC 207 would cast some doubt on the correctness of Grihalakshmi supra. _"We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the Income Tax Officer but by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner when the matter had been referred to him under section 274(2) of…

MAYANK SINGH MEHRA,NAINITAL vs. ITO, NAINITAL

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/DDN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mayank Singh Mehra V Ito Oak Over Cottage, Mallital, S Nainital Nainital, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Abipm5085E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sharad Kumar Vishnoi, Adv Respondent By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of 23.11.2023 Pronouncement

Section 27(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…1 Mayank Singh Mehra IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “DB” “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mayank Singh Mehra v ITO Oak Over Cottage, Mallital, s Nainital Nainital, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand PAN: ABIPM5085E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. Sharad Kumar Vishnoi, Adv Respondent by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Ld. DR Date of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date of 23.11.2023 Pronouncement ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ha…

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3702/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 10Section 10ASection 271(1)

…so as to show that there is primary evidence to establish that the assessee had concealed the amount or furnished inaccurate particulars and this onus is to be discharged by the department. [See D.M. Manasvi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat,-II [(1973) 3 SCC 207] 49. While considering as to whether the assessee has been able to discharge his burden, the assessing officer should not begin with the presumption that he is guilty. 50. Once the primary burden of proof is discharged, the secondary burden of proof would shift on the assessee because the proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) is of penal nature in…

ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TRENDS HOLDING & CONSULTANCY P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 7379/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7379/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Acit 2(3) M/S. Trends Holdings & R. No.552, 5Th Floor, Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 11, Horizone View, 381, Mumbai – 400020 J. General Bhonsale Marg, Opp. Sachivalaya Gymkhana Mumbai - 400021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact3203D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…arrive at a satisfaction so as to show that there is primary evidence to establish that the assessee has concealed the amount or furnished inaccurate particulars and this onus is to be discharged by the department. See D.M.Manasvi Vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 437 : 3 SCC 207. 49. While considering as to whether the assessee has been able to discharge his burden, the AO should not begin with the presumption that his is guilty. 50. Once the primary burden of proof is discharged, the secondary burden of proof would shift on the assessee because the proceeding under s. 271 (1)(c) is of penal nature in the sense that its c…

ITO 3(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. CYRUS ENGINEERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4552/MUM/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4552/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98)

For Appellant: Shri Bihanlal
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…at a satisfaction so as to show that there is primary evidence to establish that the assessee had concealed the amount or furnished inaccurate particulars and this onus is to be discharged by the Department. See D.M. Manasvi vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 437: (1973) 3 SCC 207. 49. While considering as to whether the assessee has been able to discharge his burden, the AO should not begin with the presumption that he is guilty. 50. Once the primary burden of proof is discharged, the secondary burden of proof would shift on the assessee because the proceeding under s. 271 (1)(c) is of penal nature in the sense that its co…

ITO 18(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK BHIMRAO MOKASHI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 7053/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7053/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-18(3)(1), Shri Ashok Bhimrao बनाम/ 207, Piramal Chambers, Mokashi, V. Lalbaug, 12, Harguru Niwas, Mumbai – 400 012. 45, Taikalwadi, Manorama Nagarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai –400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Adhpm6235P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ace (India) Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 169 (Del) ITA 7053/Mum/2013 7 7. Dilip N Shroff v. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) 8. T Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007)292 ITR 11(SC) 9. CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) 10. D M Manasavi v. CIT (1973) 3 SCC 207(SC) 11. Anantharam Veerasinghaiah v. CIT (1980) Supp SCC 13 The A.O. observed that the assessee has filed return of income late i.e. beyond the period stipulated u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The AO observed that had the AIR not detected the assessee’s transaction and the case would not have been selected for scrutiny under CASS, a sum of Rs. 1,86,61,62…

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

…s to show that there is primary evidence to establish that the assessee had concealed the amount or furnished inaccurate particulars and this onus is to be discharged by the department. [See D.M. Manasvi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat,-II [(1973) 3 SCC 207] 49. While considering as to whether the assessee has been able to discharge his burden, the assessing officer should not begin with the presumption that he is guilty. 50. Once the primary burden of proof is discharged, the secondary burden of proof would shift on the assessee because the proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) is of penal n…