Penalty under later income-tax law can apply to earlier assessments, but concealment must still be proved on the full facts.

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could apply to assessments originally made under section 23(3) of the 1922 Act, because penalty proceedings for offences connected with earlier assessments were not barred by the later statute. However, the revenue still had to prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the facts as a whole. Mere survival of some additions in the quantum appeal did not, by itself, establish concealment or satisfy that burden. The Tribunal's view that partial confirmation of additions was insufficient to justify penalty was therefore accepted on the concealment issue, while the applicability of penalty provisions in principle was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty could be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the assessment had been made under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. (ii) Whether the mere sustaining of part of the additions in the quantum appeal was sufficient to justify penalty without proof of concealment by the revenue.

Issue (i): Whether penalty could be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the assessment had been made under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The question was governed by the principle that penalty proceedings could be taken under the later Act in relation to offences connected with assessments made under the earlier Act, as settled by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal's view that the new Act could not be applied merely because the assessment related to the old Act was inconsistent with that principle.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the mere sustaining of part of the additions in the quantum appeal was sufficient to justify penalty without proof of concealment by the revenue.

Analysis: Sustaining some additions in assessment proceedings did not by itself establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The settled rule was that the revenue had the burden to prove concealment, and the Tribunal had found that the overall facts did not justify such an inference. The partial confirmation of additions was not enough to discharge that burden.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by upholding the penalty in principle on the first question, but rejecting the revenue's case on concealment on the second question, resulting in a mixed outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: For penalty under section 271(1)(c), the revenue must establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the whole of the facts and circumstances, and partial success in quantum appeal does not by itself prove concealment.

---