Penalty for concealment not sustained where transfer pricing adjustment was accepted and no deliberate evasion was shown.

The Delhi HC held that no substantial question of law arose from the Revenue's challenge to deletion of penalty for alleged concealment of income and underpayment of tax. The Tribunal had deleted the penalty after noting that, in the quantum proceedings, the assessee accepted the transfer pricing adjustment based on an adopted cost-plus mark-up. On those facts, there was no material showing a deliberate attempt to conceal income or evade tax, and the Tribunal was justified in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The Revenue's appeal therefore failed, and the penalty deletion stood affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeal against deletion of penalty for alleged concealment of income and underpayment of tax disclosed any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The penalty had been deleted by the Tribunal after noticing that, in the quantum proceedings, the assessee accepted the transfer pricing adjustment on the basis of an adopted cost-plus mark-up. On the facts, the proceedings did not show any deliberate attempt to conceal income or evade tax, and the Tribunal's interference with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The deletion of penalty was upheld, and the appeal failed.

---