Concealment penalty requires specific proof of suppression; mere turnover enhancement after rejected explanation is insufficient.

Penalty for concealment of turnover under section 15A(1)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was held unsustainable where the turnover increase rested only on rejection of the dealer's explanation about survey stock and notebook entries. Mere enhancement of turnover does not, by itself, prove deliberate suppression or concealment; specific independent material is required to justify penalty. Because no such material was shown and the adverse inference was drawn only from the rejected explanation, the penalty was deleted and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty for concealment of turnover under section 15A(1)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was sustainable where the turnover had been enhanced on rejection of the dealer's explanation regarding stock found at survey and entries in a notebook.

Analysis: Mere enhancement of turnover on rejection of the dealer's explanation does not, by itself, establish concealment. For imposition of penalty, there must be specific material showing deliberate suppression or concealment of turnover. The Tribunal found that the adverse inference was drawn only from the rejected explanation regarding survey stock and the notebook entries, and no independent material of concealment was shown. The authority relied on the principle that absence of specific concealment material defeats penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 15A(1)(c) was not justified and its deletion was . The revision was liable to fail.

Ratio Decidendi: Enhancement of turnover on rejection of an assessee's explanation, without specific material proving concealment, does not warrant penalty for suppressed turnover.

---