https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55971 Penalty for concealment under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act requires proof of conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. On the facts, the asset and its transfer were already within the Department's knowledge, and the omission was explained as a bona fide mistake made on professional advice and under a belief that the property belonged to the HUF. The adverse assessment on merits did not, by itself, establish mens rea for penalty, because assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct and must be tested independently. Penalty was therefore not justified and was cancelled in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:31:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55971 Penalty for concealment under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act requires proof of conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. On the facts, the asset and its transfer were already within the Department's knowledge, and the omission was explained as a bona fide mistake made on professional advice and under a belief that the property belonged to the HUF. The adverse assessment on merits did not, by itself, establish mens rea for penalty, because assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct and must be tested independently. Penalty was therefore not justified and was cancelled in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Thu, 28 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55971