Concealment penalty fails where revised return is filed voluntarily before detection and disclosure was otherwise bona fide.

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) requires proof of conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Where income had accrued on completion of work and submission of bills, the dispute and delayed payment did not by themselves establish concealment. The assessee had disclosed the dispute, had already begun litigation before filing the original return, and filed a revised return before any independent detection by the assessing authority. On those facts, the revised return was not a camouflage for suppression, and the penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was guilty of concealment of income so as to justify penalty under section 271(1)(c); and whether the filing of a revised return after the dispute with the railway authorities was resolved negatived the charge of concealment.

Analysis: The income in question had accrued when the work was completed and the bills were submitted, even though payment was disputed and delayed. However, penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be imposed only if conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars was established. The record showed that the assessee had disclosed the existence of the dispute, had already instituted litigation before filing the original return, and had filed the revised return before the Income-tax Officer had independently detected any concealment. The entire conduct of the assessee from the original return through the assessment proceedings therefore had to be considered, and the revised return could not be treated as a mere camouflage for deliberate suppression.

Conclusion: The assessee was not guilty of conscious concealment, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for concealment cannot be sustained unless the Department proves conscious and deliberate suppression of income, and a revised return filed voluntarily before detection by the assessing authority may negate the inference of contumacious conduct when the assessee's overall conduct is bona fide.

---