Penalty for concealment rejected where the Revenue failed to prove deliberate suppression and no substantial question of law arose.

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was found unsustainable because the Tribunal and lower authorities recorded concurrent facts that the Revenue had not proved concealment of income, fraud, gross neglect, or wilful neglect. The material relied upon was insufficient to discharge the onus under Explanation 1, and an earlier surrender of income at a higher commission rate in other years before the Settlement Commission did not, by itself, establish deliberate concealment for the years in dispute, especially where the Revenue later accepted commission at 1%. The High Court therefore treated the findings as factual and concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the Revenue's appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified on the facts found by the authorities below, and whether the Revenue's appeals raised any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded a finding that the Revenue failed to establish concealment of income or fraud, gross or wilful neglect, and that the material relied upon was insufficient to discharge the onus under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). The Court noted that the surrender of income at a higher commission rate in some other years before the Settlement Commission could not, by itself, prove deliberate concealment for the years in question, particularly when in subsequent years the Revenue itself accepted commission at 1 per cent. The Court further observed that the authorities below had returned concurrent findings of fact negating concealment.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not legally sustainable, and the Revenue's appeals did not raise any substantial question of law.

---