« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Mock Test Papers Series - I & II for Students appearing in CA Foundation January 2027 Examination.  Income Tax Rules 2026: CBDT Introduces Revised Form 161 for Penalty Waiver, Clarifies Misreporting Categories and Taxpayer Relief  ITR Filing and Income Tax Audit Deadline Extended: 5 Critical Things Taxpayers Must Know  Filing Belated ITR for AY 2026-27? Know Which Losses You Can Carry Forward and Which You May Lose  CBDT Extends Tax Audit Report Deadline to October 21, ITR Filing Last Date to November 21 for AY 2026-27  CBDT Extends AY 2026-27 ITR Filing Deadline for Tax-Audit Cases: New Dates and Key Compliance Details  Foreign Assets Missing From Your ITR? Income Tax Department Opens One-Time Disclosure Window  Tax Audit Deadline September 30: Why AIS, TDS and GST Figures May Not Match Your ITR and What Taxpayers Should Do  Tax audit deadline September 30: Common mistakes taxpayers should avoid  Your ITR says ‘verified’, but the refund hasn’t arrived? 5 reasons why your money could be stuck  Missed the ITR Deadline but TDS Refund Is Due? Here’s How You Can Still Claim Your Money «  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.