Concealment penalty fails where turnover was later disclosed and no deliberate suppression was shown in return filing practice.

Penalty for concealment of turnover was held unsustainable where the dealer filed returns on a 16th-to-15th accounting cycle and later disclosed the turnover in its returns. The account books were accepted, all particulars were placed before the assessing authority, and tax was levied on the full turnover. The discrepancy arose from the method of preparing returns on a period different from the calendar month, not from deliberate suppression. In the absence of a factual basis to infer concealment, penalty under section 15-A(1)(c) could not be justified and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 15-A(1)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be sustained on the ground of concealment of turnover where the dealer followed a practice of filing returns for periods running from the 16th of one month to the 15th of the next month and subsequently disclosed the turnover in its returns.

Analysis: The turnover for the disputed period was not withheld from assessment in substance. The dealer disclosed all particulars, its account books were accepted, and tax was ultimately levied on the entire turnover. The discrepancy arose from the method of preparing returns for a period different from the calendar month, not from any deliberate suppression of turnover. In these circumstances, the factual basis for inferring concealment was absent, and the penalty could not be justified.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 15-A(1)(c) for concealment of turnover was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---