Penalty for concealment needs independent proof of conscious concealment; assessment reasoning alone cannot sustain it.

Penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars is penal in character and requires cogent material showing both that the disputed amount was income and that the assessee consciously concealed particulars or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. An assessment order may be relevant evidence, but it cannot by itself sustain the penalty. On the stated facts, the Tribunal treated the additions as based only on suspicion and found no independent material proving conscious concealment; those were factual findings. The penalty therefore could not be sustained on the assessment reasoning alone, and no question of law arose for reference.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars could be sustained merely on the basis of the assessment order and the accompanying material, and whether the High Court was right in holding that no question of law arose for reference under the Act.

Analysis: Penalty proceedings under the relevant provision are penal in character. The department must establish, by cogent material, that the disputed amount constituted income and that the assessee consciously concealed particulars of income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. The assessment order may be a relevant piece of evidence, but it cannot by itself justify penalty. On the facts, the Tribunal found that the additions were supported only by suspicion and that there was no independent material to prove conscious concealment; those findings were findings of fact.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained merely on the assessment reasoning, and no question of law arose from the Tribunal's factual findings. The High Court was right in refusing to direct a reference.

---