Concealment penalty requires proof of conscious default; bona fide treatment of disclosed transactions defeated the penalty.

Penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars could not be sustained because such proceedings are quasi-criminal and the revenue had to prove conscious default. The transactions were disclosed in the books and return as tax-exempted transit sales, and the filing of a revised return with tax payment after notice supported a bona fide belief that tax was not attracted. Penalty under section 16(1)(e) was therefore set aside, while the concurrent finding that the transactions were sales attracting tax and interest remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was leviable on the assessee on the facts found, and whether the assessee's conduct disclosed conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Analysis: The disputed transactions were reflected in the books and in the return as tax-exempted, and the vouchers described them as transit sales. The authorities had concurrently found that the goods were sold to the sister concern and not given on loan, so tax and interest were payable. The remaining question was whether the ingredients for penalty were proved. Penalty proceedings were treated as quasi-criminal in nature, and the burden lay on the revenue to establish conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The conduct of filing a revised return and depositing tax after notice, along with the manner in which the transactions were recorded, indicated that the assessee may have acted under a bona fide impression that tax was not attracted.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 16(1)(e) was not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded only on the penalty issue, while the finding that the transactions constituted sales and attracted tax and interest remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be sustained unless the revenue proves conscious default, since such penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and bona fide treatment of transactions may negate the requisite mens rea.

---