JUDGMENT
D.R. Dhanuka J.
1. By this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the Commissioner of Income-tax seeks direction of this court to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following three questions to this court :
“(1) whether the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act holding that the Department had failed to discharge its onus to prove concealed income on the basis of revised returns furnished by the assessee?
(2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied in reference to the admitted concealed income in the revised return even though the concealed income was detected during search and settled with the Department after original return of income had been filed?
(3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in inferring that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealed income is not to be considered with reference to original return of income though filed after its detection by the Assessing Officer?”
2. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, we have reached the conclusion that no referable question of law arises. Our reasons in brief are as under :
The relevant assessment years are the assessment years 1977-78 and 1979-80.
3. On or about November 30, 1982, the income-tax authorities initiated action against the assessee as contemplated under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During the course of investigation, the income-tax authorities discovered certain discrepancies in the record maintained by the assessee in respect of stock. By a letter dated December 7, 1982, the assessee made a conditional offer for settlement. By a letter dated March 5, 1986, the assessee offered the sums of Rs. 1,37,194 and Rs. 2,33,708 for taxation in respect of the assessment years under consideration. The assessee addressed the said letter dated March 5, 1986, in continuation of its letter dated December 7, 1982. In the said letter dated December 7, 1982, the assessee had specifically stated that no penalty should be levied on the assessee as according to the assessee no penalty was leviable having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the said offer of the settlement, the assessee further stated that due to strike and other difficulties, the stock register could not be properly maintained. By the said conditional letter of settlement, the assessee stipulated as under :
“Even if the said penalty is leviable, the same shall be waived by the Commissioner under section 273A of the Act.”
4. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1977-78 by adding a sum of Rs. 1,37,494 to its income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings for the year 1979-80 by adding a sum of Rs. 2,33,708 to the income. The Income-tax Officer thus acted upon the abovereferred offer. However, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee as contemplated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Apart from the said letter dated March 5, 1986, there was no other material whatsoever before the authorities on the basis of which it could be held that the assessee had concealed its income during the relevant years. However, the Income-tax Officer levied penalty on the assessee as set out in his order dated March 24, 1986. The amount of penalty was reduced by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee filed a petition under section 273A of the Income-tax Act for waiver of interest and penalty. By order dated March 4, 1988, the Commissioner of Income-tax reduced the penalty imposed to 30 per cent. of the tax on the income sought to be evaded during the years. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reached the conclusion that the onus was on the Revenue to prove that the assessee had concealed its income and the Revenue had failed to discharge the said onus. The only material before the income-tax authorities for imposition of the penalty on the assessee was the abovereferred conditional letter of settlement, i.e., letter dated March 5, 1986. In CIT v. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini [1988] 169 ITR 33, our High Court held in almost similar circumstances that the letter addressed by the assessee to the Income-tax Officer offering credits in respect of the hundi loans for assessment stating therein that the question of imposition of penalty may be decided on the merits did not amount to an admission of concealment of income and the levy of penalty on such basis was liable to be quashed. In this case, it was further held by the High Court that if the Tribunal had taken a possible view having regard to the facts of the case, there would be no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in the reference jurisdiction.
5. Learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon the ratio of this judgment and has submitted that the ratio of this judgment in squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The view taken by the Tribunal to the effect that the Revenue had failed to discharge its onus to prove “concealment of income” is certainly a reasonably possible view. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio of the abovereferred decision, we have reached the conclusion that no case is made out by the Revenue with the decision of the Tribunal and the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is a finding of fact. The assumption of “concealment of income” made in questions Nos. 2 and 3 referred to us is without any factual basis. No penalty could be imposed on the assessee merely on the basis of the abovereferred offer of settlement, i.e., letter dated March 5, 1986, read with the letter dated December 7, 1982.
6. The application made by the Revenue herein fails. The rule is discharged. No order as to costs.