Debatable deemed dividend issue defeats concealment penalty where no clear case of inaccurate particulars is made out.

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the addition under section 2(22)(e) relating to deemed dividend arose from a debatable issue that had travelled through multiple appellate forums, including the Supreme Court. On those facts, the record did not show deliberate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and a concealment penalty could not be imposed without clear culpable conduct. The penalty order was therefore directed to be deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable where the addition under section 2(22)(e) on account of deemed dividend had travelled through appellate forums and the underlying issue was debatable.

Analysis: The addition itself had been contested up to the Supreme Court and had earlier met with differing results before the Tribunal and the High Court. In these circumstances, the issue could not be treated as one involving deliberate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A penalty provision of this nature requires a clear case of concealment or inaccuracy, which was not made out on the facts.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded and the penalty order did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the addition giving rise to penalty is based on a debatable issue that has been subject to substantial appellate contest, penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars is not warranted in the absence of clear culpable conduct.

---