Concealment-based penalty upheld where Tribunal found deliberate suppression of sales and supporting evidence of attempted concealment.

Penalty for concealment was justified where the Tribunal found clear evidence of printed bill forms being used, business being carried on despite denial, unrepudiated witness evidence, and deliberate omission and suppression of sales. The failure to produce vouchers and records supported an inference of an attempt to defeat detection, and the assessee's explanation was rejected on the basis of the full materials, not in isolation. On those factual findings, the departmental burden was treated as discharged and the concealment-based penalty under section 28(1)(c) was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the levy of penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified on the facts found by the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded a clear finding that there was evidence of printed bill forms being used, that order business had been done despite denial, that the evidence of the witness remained unrepudiated, and that there was deliberate omission and suppression of sales. It further found that failure to produce vouchers and records indicated an attempt to defeat detection. The rejection of the assessee's explanation was not the sole basis; the penalty was founded on materials showing concealment of income. In such circumstances, the departmental burden was treated as discharged, and the principle applied was that recognised where concealment is supported by a clear factual finding.

Conclusion: The levy of penalty under section 28(1)(c) was held to be justified, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

---