« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Income Tax Return Filing: 10 Mistakes To Avoid When Filing ITR For AY 2024-25  Old vs New Tax Regime: Who should move to the New Tax Regime from the old one?  Income Tax Calculator FY 2023-24: How To Know Your Tax Liability Online On IT Dept's Portal?  BackBack Income Tax Act amendment on cards on tax treatment of MSME dues  ITR-1, ITR-2, ITR-4 forms for FY 2023-24 available for e-filing. Check details here  Income tax slabs FY 2024-25: Experts share these 8 benefits for taxpayers in new income tax regime  How To File ITR Online - Step by Step Guide to Efile Income Tax Return, FY 2023-24 (AY 2024-25)  Old or new tax regime for TDS on salary? This post-election 2024 event will impact your tax planning  What Are 5 Heads Of Income Tax?  Income Tax Dept releases interim action plan for FY25 on tax collection, refund approvals   Income Tax Return: 5 lesser-known tax-saving tips from Section 80 «  Educational institutions under I-T Dept scanner... Direct tax mop-up rises 128% in April... » No penalty if concealment of income wasn' t motive:SC May, 26th 2007 The Supreme Court has ruled that the revenue department cannot initiate penalty proceedings if there is 'absence of motive' on part of an assessee to conceal the actual income. There are differences between 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars', the apex court said, setting aside an order of an assessing officer of income tax. The income tax department had initiated penalty proceedings against the appellant after he filed a revised return furnishing his detailed investments. A bench comprising Justicde S B Sinha and Justice Markandey Katju said, "the order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus, burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding in an assessment proceeding that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted, though a finding in the assessment proceeding constitute good evidence in the penalty proceeding. In the penalty proceedings, thus, the authorities must consider the matter afresh as the question has to be considered from a different angle". The court said that "the 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' carry different connotations. Concealment refers to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi". The apex court allowed an appeal by the assessee. The income tax department which was not satisfied had asked for detailed particulars of investments and a revised return furnishing all the requisite particulars to the department. The assessee had also filed an application before the Settlement Commission for settlement of the taxes due which was, however, rejected . The assessee thereafter, filed a second revised return, upon which assessment was made by the assessing officer. Though the revised return was accepted by the assessing officer, a proceedings for imposition of penalty in terms of Section 271(1)(C) of the income tax act was started.