Separate disclosure of spouse's share income is mandatory; bona fide belief does not excuse non-disclosure for penalty purposes.

Where the amended return form and rule 12 required separate disclosure of a spouse's share income, omission to include that income could not be justified on the basis of bona fide belief. The Supreme Court principle treated such income as part of the assessee's returnable income for disclosure purposes, so the Tribunal's reliance on inapplicability of P. Kochammu Amma was unsustainable. The absence of a deliberate attempt to hide income did not excuse non-disclosure in the prescribed return, and the failure to disclose attracted penalty for concealment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty by holding that the decision in P. Kochammu Amma was inapplicable; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in accepting the assessee's plea of bona fide belief and in holding that there was no concealment in not including the spouse's share income.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty by holding that the decision in P. Kochammu Amma was inapplicable.

Analysis: The assessment years were after the amendment to the return form and rule 12, under which income arising to the spouse or minor child was required to be shown separately. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court was that such income formed part of the assessee's returnable income and had to be disclosed. In that legal setting, the Tribunal's view that the decision was inapplicable was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in accepting the assessee's plea of bona fide belief and in holding that there was no concealment in not including the spouse's share income.

Analysis: Once the law required separate disclosure of the spouse's share income in the return, omission to make that disclosure could not be excused merely on the plea of belief that the income was assessable only in the spouse's hands. The absence of a deliberate attempt to hide income did not negative the statutory duty to disclose the item in the prescribed return.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that non-disclosure of the spouse's share income attracted penalty, and the Tribunal's order cancelling the penalty was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prescribed return requires separate disclosure of spouse's share income, failure to disclose that income in the return is not excused by a claimed bona fide belief and may constitute concealment for penalty purposes.

---