https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20025 Whether income was concealed or omitted inadvertently was treated as a question of fact. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that failure to include property income in the return was due to confusion, since the same income had earlier been assessed in the hands of a larger Hindu undivided family and had been accepted by the department. The HC held that the Tribunal was competent to reach that factual conclusion and no error of law was shown. No referable question of law arose under section 256(2), and the finding that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 03 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:54:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20025 Whether income was concealed or omitted inadvertently was treated as a question of fact. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that failure to include property income in the return was due to confusion, since the same income had earlier been assessed in the hands of a larger Hindu undivided family and had been accepted by the department. The HC held that the Tribunal was competent to reach that factual conclusion and no error of law was shown. No referable question of law arose under section 256(2), and the finding that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20025