Conscious concealment must be a completed, deliberate act by the return-filing representative; preparatory omissions before death do not suffice.

Conscious concealment as an element of penalty under section 28(1)(c) requires a completed, deliberate act of hiding particulars of income or knowingly furnishing inaccurate particulars to the assessing authority; juristic continuity of a Hindu undivided family after the karta's death does not establish that element. Where the person representing the assessee for assessment (the guardian) filed returns without guilty knowledge and the deceased's preparatory omissions or fictitious book entries predated his death, the statutory threshold of conscious concealment by the reporting representative was not met, and the penalty was therefore not validly imposed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act has been validly imposed on the assessee (a Hindu undivided family represented by the mother and guardian of minor coparceners) in respect of returns filed after the death of the karta.

Analysis: The Court examined the requirements of section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, namely that the penalised concealment must be a conscious act of concealing particulars of income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars and that such concealment must be from the assessing authority. The juristic continuity of a Hindu undivided family after the death of the karta does not by itself establish conscious concealment by the family or by the person who represents it for assessment purposes. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found, and the Tribunal accepted, that the guardian who filed the returns (the mother) had no guilty knowledge and was not conscious of any concealment when she filed returns in 1944 and 1949. The deceased karta had maintained books containing fictitious entries and omissions, but he died before having an opportunity to file a return; his preparatory acts or omissions did not amount to a completed, conscious concealment from the assessing authority within the meaning of section 28(1)(c). Thus the statutory threshold of conscious concealment by the person who furnished the return on behalf of the assessee was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The requirements of section 28(1)(c) were not satisfied; the penalty under section 28(1)(c) was not validly imposed. The question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.

---