Knowingly false disclosure of consideration can amount to concealment, while a factual finding on concealed income may stand

A knowingly false declaration of purchase consideration was treated as concealment for penalty purposes, and a later admission after raid and seizure did not cure the earlier false disclosure; the penalty issue was therefore resolved against the assessee. By contrast, the amount of Rs. 18,750 was found on the materials to be a question of fact, and the finding that it did not represent concealed income was left undisturbed. The note reflects a mixed result: concealment penalty principles were applied strictly, while the factual exclusion of the smaller sum was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was liable to penalty for concealment when the declared consideration for purchase of a site was knowingly false and the true consideration was later admitted. (ii) Whether the sum of Rs. 18,750 represented concealed income of the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was liable to penalty for concealment when the declared consideration for purchase of a site was knowingly false and the true consideration was later admitted.

Analysis: The declared value was not a bona fide disclosure. Subsequent admission after raid and seizure did not erase the earlier wrongful concealment. A false declaration made with knowledge of the real facts attracts penalty, and the Tribunal's view that there was no concealment could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue; the penalty was held to be leviable.

Issue (ii): Whether the sum of Rs. 18,750 represented concealed income of the assessee.

Analysis: The Tribunal had examined the materials and recorded a finding of fact that the amount did not constitute concealed income. The question was treated as one essentially of fact, warranting no interference.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The penalty-related findings of the Tribunal were reversed, but the factual finding excluding Rs. 18,750 from concealed income was sustained, resulting in a mixed outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: A knowingly false declaration of consideration constitutes concealment for penalty purposes, and a later admission does not nullify the earlier act of concealment; a pure finding of fact on concealed income will ordinarily not be disturbed.

---