Bona fide mistake and no concealment defeat penalty appeals where no substantial question of law arises.

Penalty proceedings did not warrant interference where the Tribunal found that the assessee's claim resulted from a bona fide mistake and wrong professional advice, not conscious concealment of income. The High Court accepted that mere failure to return income does not, by itself, justify penalty absent intentional concealment, and also noted that the Tribunal's view on merits was plausible. As the tax effect in the appeals was below the CBDT monetary limit, and no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's finding, the Revenue's appeals were not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeals arising from the penalty proceedings called for interference, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's finding that the assessee's claim was based on a bona fide mistake and wrong advice.

Analysis: The Tribunal had accepted the assessee's explanation that the impugned claim was made on the basis of advice received from a chartered accountant and treated the default as a bona fide error rather than a conscious attempt to conceal income. It also relied on the principle that mere failure to return income does not, by itself, justify penalty in the absence of conscious concealment. The High Court further noted that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular, and that the Tribunal's view on merits was a plausible one.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's appeals were not entertained.

---