This is appeal, preferred by assessee, in which many grounds are raised, sum and substance of which is to dispute penalty of Rs. 8,334 levied by ITO under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 ( Act ) and confirmed by AAC. facts in background of issue are in short compass. In course of assessment proceedings, when assessee was required by ITO t o substantiate entries in two accounts of Sant Lal Kanhya lal and Sunder D s s Kimiti Lal, assessee made available to ITO copies of their accounts, which, when sent by ITO to concerned parties for verification, ITO gathered that said parties did not have any account of assessee Gulati Stores and thereafter assessee vide letter dt. 30th March, 1979 surrendered said amounts for additions. ITO while making said additions also initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) mentioning in end of assessment order: "Assessed Issue requisite documents along with penalty notices under s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income and under s. 273(b) for non- filing of estimate of advance tax. Also charge interest under s. 217." Further, ITO served another notice dt. 27th June, 1980 asking assessee to show cause, as per which assessee was required to explain its case both in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of particulars of income. assessee filed its reply dt. 9th July, 1980 with which also enclosed copy of letter written by assessee to ITO while surrendering said amounts and pleaded that no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is leviable as there is no mens rea. ITO levied penalty in sum of Rs. 8,334. When it came to be disputed before AAC, he confirmed same after detailed reasoning given by him in this regard in his order. It is this action of AAC which is contested by assessee. learned counsel for assessee, Mr. D.S. Gupta. ,mainly addressed us firstly on proposition that since penalty was initiated for concealment of particular and levied for filing of inaccurate particulars, it was bad in law and in that respect, he relied on cases of CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji(1972) 85 ITR 77 (Guj). and Padma Ram Bharali vs. CIT (1977) CTR (Gau) 66: (1977) 110 ITR 54 (Gau). He also submitted that penalty is also bad in law because it is levied in sum which is less than minimum penalty leviable and in that regard, he relied on case of CIT vs. Bhudhar Singh & Sons (1983) 37 CTR (All) 28: (1983) 143 ITR 322 (All) and submitted that order of ITO, being not speaking one, deserve to be cancelled. He also submitted that in case of two possible views, one favouring assessee has to be relied upon and in that regard, he relied on cases of CIT vs. A.K. Das (1970) 77 ITR 31 (Cal) and CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) CTR (SC) 177: (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). He also submitted that what is enough for assessment is not enough for levy of penalty and therefore, no penalty was warranted in instant case. He also relied on case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 189: (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) in that regard. learned senior Departmental representative, Mr. R.K. Bali, on other hand, besides relying on orders of two lower authorities relied on cases of Shiv Narain Khanna (P&H), Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn. vs. CIT (1981) 20 CTR (Cal) 228: (1981) 130 ITR 602 (Cal) and Kedar Nath Sanwal Dass vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 440 (P&H) and submitted that as per Calcutta High Court decision in case of Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn. (supra), both charges as to concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income could subsist together and in show-cause notice both were included therein. Regarding amount of penalty, he submitted, that is matter of calculation and could be corrected. Regarding issue that what is enough for assessment is not enough for levy of penalty, he cited two Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions, i.e., Shiv Narain Khanna (supra) and kedar Nath Sanwal Dass (supra). After taking into consideration rival submissions, we are unable interfere in finding of AAC. Since there is no controversy about fact that in course of filing original return, assessee concealed particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars and it was pertaining to purchases, it was held after investigation made by ITO that assessee surrendered said amounts and, therefore, it cannot be treated as case surrendered said amounts and, therefore, it cannot be treated as case where mens rea was absent. Under circumstances, when no additional evidence was produced in course of assessment proceedings was found to b e false, observation and reasoning available in assessment order were enough for sustenance of penalty and it is not that ITO blindly following his reasoning and/or observations in assessment order levied penalty but he also gave finding that no additional evidence was produced by assessee. Reliance of learned counsel for assessee in case of Lakhdhir Lalji (supra) and Padma Ram Bharali (supra) is misplaced because though in course of assessment proceedings when penalty was initiated, ITO mentioned only concealment of particulars but subsequently when show- cause notice was issued, it contained both limbs, viz., furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of particulars of income. Simply because penalty levied was of Rs. 8,334, which was based on clerical working of tax evaded and which ought to have been Rs. 8,904 according to working of learned counsel for assessee, it could not be said that order was not speaking one. Reliance in case of Vegetable Product Ltd. (supra) is also misplaced because is not question of two interpretations in instant case. main spring behind two cases of Gujarat and Gauhati High Courts, relied upon by learned counsel for assessee, was denial of opportunity that once show-cause notice for concealment of particulars of income was served penalty cannot be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. But it is not so in instant case. Once show-cause notice bears both limbs, viz., furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of particulars. Though word or is there between two in statute but it does not mean that in case it is furnishing of inaccurate particulars it cannot be concealment of particulars of income. Sometimes it could be one but often it is both. In this regard reliance of learned Departmental representative in case of Rahmat Development & Engg. Corpn. (supra) is correctly placed in which it was held: "...that, is instant case, IAC upheld both charges and so there was no inconsistency between notice issued by ITO and findings given b y IAC. Moreover, assessee had been given sufficient opportunity to refute both charges. facts showed that inaccurate particulars of investments which were furnished was modus operandi to conceal real income of assessee. imposition of penalty was, therefore, valid." (p. 603) Instant is case in which abovesaid case is applicable on all fours. Then, on aspect of issue what is enough for assessment is not enough for penalty, we have two Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions in cases of Shiv Narain Khanna and Kedar Nath Sanwal Dass (supra). Instant is not case where ITO levied penalty purely on evidence, finding or reasoning out he gave further opportunity, as observed by him in para 3 of his penalty order, which reads as under: "3. Against arguments put forth by assessee before levy of penalty, I have carefully perused assessment record and find that intensive enquires have already been made regarding bogus purchases entered into books of account of assessee in names of above two parties. assessee was afforded another opportunity for 6th March, 1981 when none attended nor any compliance is reportedly made. In these circumstances, I have no alternative but to proceed on basis of record because assessee could not furnish any independent evidence furnished at time of assessment. Since no fresh evidence has been produced by assessee-firm before levy of penalty and disposal thereof, I have no alternative but to keep reliance upon material gathered at time of assessment. There is ample proof on record to confirm that these bogus purchases were detected by assessing officer and after thorough investigation and confirmation received from both Delhi parties named above, additions were made. As assessee has not been able to prove genuineness of these credits and concealed amounts to that extent, I am not satisfied with explanation filed by assessee. Under these circumstances, I impose penalty of Rs. 8,334 only, which is 100 per cent of amount of tax which was evaded by assessee." Instant is not case where no opportunity was afforded to assessee to substantiate its case in respect of both aspects, i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of particulars of income. But when assessee was not forthcoming in course of penalty proceedings with any further evidence and ITO has enough in his hands collected at stage of assessment proceedings, same was relied upon by ITO and accordingly same should suffice for penalty purposes. It all depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. Instant is case where penalty levied was warranted. In light of above discussion and for reasons given by AAC in his order, same is confirmed. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** GULATI STORES v. INCOME TAX OFFICER