Concealment penalty requires proof of deliberate suppression; rejection of the assessee's explanation alone is not enough.

Penalty for concealment under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, requires the Revenue to prove by relevant material that the disputed receipts were income and that concealment or inaccurate particulars were furnished consciously and deliberately. Findings in assessment proceedings may be relevant, but they are not conclusive in penalty proceedings. Mere rejection of the assessee's explanation, without further evidence showing concealment, is insufficient. On the material considered, the penalty was held unjustified and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was sustainable on the facts where the assessee's explanation for the disputed receipts was rejected in the assessment proceedings.

Analysis: Penalty proceedings are penal in nature, and the burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the disputed additions represented the assessee's income and that there was conscious and deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Findings in assessment proceedings are relevant, but they are not conclusive in penalty proceedings. Mere rejection of the assessee's explanation, or a finding that the explanation is false, does not by itself justify penalty. Unless the entirety of circumstances reasonably and unquestionably points to concealment, the statutory condition for penalty is not satisfied. On the material found, apart from disbelief of the explanation, no further evidence was brought to show that the amounts were income concealed by the assessee.

Conclusion: The penalty was not justified and the question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In penalty proceedings for concealment, the Revenue must prove by relevant material that the disputed amount is income and that concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars was conscious and deliberate; rejection of the assessee's explanation alone is insufficient.

---