Bona fide estimated returns after seizure of books cannot sustain concealment penalty without proof of fraud or wilful neglect.

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained where the assessee filed original returns on an estimate basis after seizure of books of account, later filed revised returns once the books were restored, and the assessments were completed on that basis. The record did not establish that the original returns were not bona fide or that there was fraud, wilful neglect, concealment, or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal's finding that concealment was not made out was upheld, the minimum penalty was held not exigible, and no substantial question of law arose for admission of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable where the original returns were filed on estimate basis after seizure of books of account and revised returns were later filed, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order cancelling the penalty.

Analysis: The books of account had been seized, leaving the assessee to file original returns on estimate basis without the supporting audited accounts. After the books were returned, revised returns were filed and the assessments were completed on that basis. The only foundation for the penalty was the difference between the original returned income and the finally assessed income. The record did not show any material establishing that the original returns were not bona fide or that there was fraud or wilful neglect in filing them. On those facts, the Tribunal's finding that concealment was not made out could not be faulted, and the levy of minimum penalty could not stand. In that view, no substantial question of law arose for admission of the appeal.

Conclusion: The penalty was not exigible and the Tribunal's cancellation of penalty was upheld; the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed because the facts did not establish concealment or inaccurate particulars, and the proposed appeal did not disclose any substantial question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for concealment cannot be sustained merely because the assessed income differs from the income originally returned when the original return was filed bona fide on estimate basis and the material does not establish fraud, wilful neglect, or concealment.

---