Bank not penalized for income concealment as revised return disclosed accurate income promptly.

The court ruled in favor of the respondent, a bank, in a case concerning penalty imposition for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the revised return filed by the respondent, rectifying the initial error of declaring no taxable income, was done promptly and without any intent to conceal income. As the return ultimately disclosed accurate income with no inaccurate details, the court deemed the penalty unwarranted. The court emphasized the need for inaccurate particulars of income to impose a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and dismissed the appeal, stating no substantial question of law required further adjudication.

---

---

Issues:
Penalty imposition for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:
The respondent, a bank providing credit facilities, initially declared no taxable income in its return but later filed a revised return showing taxable income. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty for concealment of income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal both ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the revised return was filed without any ulterior motive. The revenue argued that the initial claim was an attempt to conceal income, but the court found no merit in this argument. The court emphasized that the revised return declared complete and accurate income, with no evidence of conscious effort to conceal income.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing the need for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The court highlighted that the details supplied in the return must be inaccurate, erroneous, or false to attract the penalty. In this case, as no details in the return were found incorrect, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed unwarranted. The court clarified that a mere unsustainable claim in the return does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The court concluded that the respondent rectified the initial error by submitting a revised return promptly, disclosing accurate income. As there was no concealment or inaccurate details in the return, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable. The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also found the initial error to be a genuine mistake, leading to the acceptance of the revised return. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no substantial question of law requiring further adjudication under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

---