Concealment penalty requires wilful suppression; bona fide omission of notional house property income did not justify penalty.

Penalty for concealment is not automatic on every omission; it requires deliberate, wilful suppression or a bona fide case must fail on concealment. In a matter concerning non-disclosure of notional income from self-occupied house property, the assessee had disclosed the property investment, the notional income was small, and the explanation that the amount was not understood to be returnable was accepted as bona fide. On those facts, intent to evade tax was not established and penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable for non-disclosure of notional income from self-occupied house property.

Analysis: Penalty does not follow every omission automatically. The material question is whether the omission was deliberate, wilful, or actuated by a mala fide intention to conceal income and evade tax. The assessee had disclosed the property investment, the notional character of the income was small, and the explanation that such income was not understood to be returnable was treated as bona fide. On the facts, concealment with intent to evade tax was not established.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified and was cancelled in favour of the assessee.

---