Penalty for non-disclosure requires proof of deliberate concealment, not mere omission, where surrounding facts support disclosure.

Penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot rest on mere non-disclosure of trust property. The HC held that the authority had to consider the accountable person's explanation, the legal advice relied on, and the prior disclosure to revenue authorities before finalising assessment. Because those surrounding facts were not examined, the inference of deliberate concealment or falsity was unsupported. The penalty order was therefore not sustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty for concealment of estate and furnishing inaccurate particulars was sustainable when the accountable person had not disclosed the trust property on the legal advice that it did not pass on the beneficiary's death and had brought the matter to the notice of the revenue authorities before finalisation of assessment.

Analysis: Mere non-disclosure of property does not, by itself, establish concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In determining liability for penalty, the authority was required to examine the surrounding facts bearing on the disclosure, including the explanation offered and the prior communication to the revenue authorities. Since these relevant circumstances were not considered, the inference of concealment was unsupported.

Conclusion: The penalty order was not sustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be imposed solely on the basis of non-disclosure unless the authority considers all relevant facts and establishes deliberate concealment or falsity.

---