https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29110 Penalty for concealment is determined by the law in force when the offending return was filed, so the concealment alleged for the 1961-62 assessment year had to be tested under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, not the later wording of section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. The High Court also held that penalty requires proof of conscious and deliberate concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars; mere omission, inability to substantiate an item, or reliance on suspicious surrounding facts is not enough. On the facts, the Department failed to prove intentional concealment, the Tribunal was justified in placing the burden on the Department, and the penalty was not sustainable. en-us Fri, 13 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:17:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29110 Penalty for concealment is determined by the law in force when the offending return was filed, so the concealment alleged for the 1961-62 assessment year had to be tested under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, not the later wording of section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. The High Court also held that penalty requires proof of conscious and deliberate concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars; mere omission, inability to substantiate an item, or reliance on suspicious surrounding facts is not enough. On the facts, the Department failed to prove intentional concealment, the Tribunal was justified in placing the burden on the Department, and the penalty was not sustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29110