Penalty for concealment: bona fide inadvertent accounting errors and taxpayer cooperation negate penalty liability in assessed additions.

Penalty liability under the Income-tax Act was examined for omissions in receipts and an unadded back loss; the governing principle applied is that section 271(1)(c) requires deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, whereas bona fide inadvertent errors do not attract penalty. The taxpayer's cooperation, audited accounts evidencing transactions, acceptance of disallowances during assessment, and lack of material indicating conscious suppression were treated as determinative of absence of mens rea, resulting in deletion of the penalty and dismissal of the Revenue's appeal as reported.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty of Rs. 1,30,99,807 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of (i) an omission of Rs. 1,25,428 in receipts and (ii) a claimed loss on sale of fixed assets of Rs. 4,02,50,000 (omitted to be added back) is sustainable where the assessee admitted the mistakes as inadvertent and cooperated in assessment and penalty proceedings.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the disputed additions and the consequent penalty reflected deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, or were bona fide inadvertent errors. The statutory framework considered includes penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and assessment proceedings under section 143(3) and return filing under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The authorities below recorded that both disputed amounts arose from inadvertent omissions in computation/return which were accepted and explained by the assessee during assessment. Reliance was placed on precedent holding that penalty under section 271(1)(c) requires satisfaction of deliberate concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars and that bona fide, inadvertent human errors do not attract penalty. The Tribunal noted the assessee's cooperation, maintenance of audited accounts showing the transactions, acceptance of the disallowances when pointed out, and absence of any material suggesting conscious suppression or deliberate misstatement.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not sustainable. The additions arose from bona fide inadvertent errors and there was no deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty of Rs. 1,30,99,807 is deleted and the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.

---