https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6816 Penalty for concealment under section 28(1)(c) required proof that the omission of dividend income was deliberate and intended to evade tax. A mere omission, without evidence of falsity, lack of bona fides, or surrounding circumstances showing concealment, was insufficient. The assessee's explanation that dividend income had earlier been returned on receipt basis, that the correct legal position was later understood, and that a revised return was then filed for the earlier year supported a bona fide mistake. The size of the omitted amount did not by itself establish concealment. Penalty was therefore not sustainable because the Tribunal had proceeded on an incorrect view of the legal position on inclusion of dividend income. en-us Wed, 22 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6816 Penalty for concealment under section 28(1)(c) required proof that the omission of dividend income was deliberate and intended to evade tax. A mere omission, without evidence of falsity, lack of bona fides, or surrounding circumstances showing concealment, was insufficient. The assessee's explanation that dividend income had earlier been returned on receipt basis, that the correct legal position was later understood, and that a revised return was then filed for the earlier year supported a bona fide mistake. The size of the omitted amount did not by itself establish concealment. Penalty was therefore not sustainable because the Tribunal had proceeded on an incorrect view of the legal position on inclusion of dividend income. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6816