Later-discovered evidence can sustain a second concealment penalty when the first penalty rested on a different factual basis.

A second concealment penalty was sustainable where later-discovered books revealed the actual profits of the Bangkok business and showed that the original return had omitted disclosure of relevant income. The earlier penalty had been imposed on an estimated assessment basis, so it rested on different facts from the later penalty based on fresh material. The prior imposition of one penalty did not bar another penalty for the same assessment year when the second proceeding was founded on independently discovered evidence of concealment. The contention that only one penalty could be levied was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was valid when the first penalty had already been imposed for the original assessment year and the assessment had initially proceeded on an estimate.

Analysis: The original assessment relating to the Bangkok branch was made without any disclosure of its accounts or profits, and the first penalty notice was issued on that footing when the Income-tax Officer had only an estimated basis before him. Later, in proceedings for a subsequent year, the books of the Bangkok business were produced and they revealed the actual profits for the earlier year, furnishing fresh material from which concealment of income in the original return could be established. The crucial point was that the two penalties did not rest on identical facts: the first related to the initial estimate stage, while the second rested on later-discovered data showing deliberate suppression in the original return. The later penalty was therefore not barred merely because a previous penalty had been imposed.

Conclusion: The second penalty was valid and the contention that only one penalty could be levied on the same assessment year was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the revenue, holding that the penalty under section 28(1)(c) was sustainable on the later-discovered facts and was not vitiated by the earlier penalty proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for concealment may be sustained on later-discovered material where the earlier penalty was imposed on a different factual basis and the original return had been made without disclosure of the relevant income.

---