Undisclosed income and concealment penalty: assessment upheld on implausible deposits, but penalty failed for lack of proof.

An assessment may be sustained where surrounding circumstances make the assessee's explanation for fixed deposits implausible and the material supports an inference that the funds were secret income from an undisclosed source; the fixed deposit amount was therefore upheld as taxable in the assessee's hands. In contrast, penalty for concealment under the Income-tax Act is penal in nature, so the Revenue must prove concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and that burden does not shift to the assessee. As the department failed to discharge that burden on the record, the penalty under section 28(1)(c) was held invalid and set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sum of Rs. 63,000 standing in fixed deposit in the names of three persons was rightly assessed as the assessee's income from an undisclosed source; (ii) whether the penalty imposed for concealment of income under the Income-tax Act was legally valid.

Issue (i): Whether the sum of Rs. 63,000 standing in fixed deposit in the names of three persons was rightly assessed as the assessee's income from an undisclosed source.

Analysis: The assessment turned on the surrounding circumstances and the credibility of the explanation offered for the deposits. The stated transactions were found improbable, including the alleged purchase of a colliery by persons with no prior colliery business, the absence of prior negotiations, the carrying of large cash amounts from Rajasthan to Dhanbad, the choice of a distant bank for deposit, and the commercial improbability of locking up substantial funds at low interest. The explanation of the alleged depositors was rejected as untrue, and there was sufficient material to support the inference that the money really belonged to the assessee and represented secret income from an undisclosed source.

Conclusion: The amount of Rs. 63,000 was validly assessed to income tax in the hands of the assessee, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed for concealment of income under the Income-tax Act was legally valid.

Analysis: Penalty proceedings under section 28(1)(c) are penal in nature, and the burden lies on the department to establish concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. That burden is not shifting in character and remains on the Revenue to prove guilt. On the material before the Tribunal, the department failed to discharge that burden beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal had misdirected itself in treating the assessee as bound to make his witnesses give a coherent story, whereas the legal obligation remained on the department to prove concealment.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed under section 28(1)(c) was not legally valid, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee on the assessment question and against the Revenue on the penalty question, so the assessment was upheld while the penalty was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In income-tax penalty proceedings, the Revenue bears the burden of proving concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and an assessment based on surrounding circumstances and rejection of an implausible explanation may still be sustained where sufficient material supports the inference of undisclosed income.

---