One appeal has been filed by Department against order of CIT(A), cross-objection has been filed by assessee and assessee has also filed separate appeal against same order of CIT(A). As all three appeals relate to one order of CIT(A), these are being taken up together for consideration and disposal. appeal of Department and cross-objection filed by assessee were fixed for hearing, thrice and twice adjournments were granted at request of assessee. appeal was first fixed for hearing on 4th April, 1983. Departmental Representative requested for adjournment and hearing was adjourned. Again it was fixed for hearing on 23rd April, 1984. Even then request for adjournment was made on behalf of assessee and hearing was adjourned to 10th May, 1984. Again request for adjournment has been made which has been rejected as there was no sufficient ground mentioned for making request for adjournment and assessee has already been granted adjournment twice. only cause mentioned in petition for adjournment dt. 9th May, 1984 is that certain evidences which were relevant in appeal were yet to be obtained from partner who was out of Patna. In our opinion, request for adjournment has been made without any reasonable or sufficient cause. It has been rejected. appeals are being disposed of on merits after hearing Departmental Representative. Even appeal of assessee against same order of CIT(A) was fixed for hearing on 10th May, 1984 which was served by registered post much in advance. Even no petition for adjournment has been filed. This appeal is also being disposed of accordingly. appeal filed by Department is against order of CIT(A) reducing quantum of penalty levied by ITO for concealment under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'). assessee is contractor. He declared receipts of only Rs. 5,95,461. ITO made direct enquiries from office of paying authority [Executive Engineer (Civil), All India Radio, Calcutta) and he found that gross receipts of assessee were Rs. 10,70,353 and net receipts Rs. 7,75,275. ITO computed net profit by applying rate of 11 per cent on gross receipts. In appeal filed against assessment, CIT(A) reduced net profit from 11 per cent to 10 per cent and confirmed computation of total income at Rs. 1,07,035. ITO thereafter levied penalty for concealment of Rs. 48,680 (difference between returned income and income finally assessed). CIT(A) while dealing with penalty matter held that no profit had arisen on turnover represented by cost of materials supplied according to decision of Supreme Court in Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar vs. CIT 1978 CTR (SC) 134: (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC). As ITO while levying penalty had taken into account total income finally confirmed which included profit even on materials supplied, CIT(A) while dealing with appeal against order under s. 271(1)(c) reduced penalty levied by ITO of Rs. 48,680 by Rs. 25,089 confirming penalty to extent of Rs. 23,591 only. As mentioned above, both assessee and Department are in appeal against said order of CIT(A) by which he has confirmed part of penalty levied and deleted balance. We would first deal with cross- objection and appeal of assessee filed against order of CIT(A) confirming part of penalty levied. It is argued in cross-objection as also in appeal of assessee that whole of penalty should have been deleted and that assessee bona fidely relied upon certificate issued by paying authority which turned out to be incorrect. It has thus been argued in grounds of appeal that assessee should not be penalised, as he acted on basis of incorrect certificate issued by A.I.R. and that assessee did not know that certificate issued was wrong. We have considered contention raised by assessee. In our opinion, contention raised is wholly unacceptable and baseless. assessee was maintaining books of account and he has filed trading and P & L a/c. Even in trading account, receipts are shown at much lesser figure than actual receipts of assessee. It is clear that even in books of account assessee has suppressed receipts and part of receipts were not shown in books of account at all. It is not assessee's case that there were no accounts and he was not aware of correct receipts as no accounts were kept. assessee is stated to have kept accounts and it cannot be held that t h e assessee was unaware of actual receipts. It is clear from fact t h e assessee was unaware of actual receipts. It is clear from fact mentioned in order of ITO/CIT(A) that assessee suppressed receipts purposely to evade payment of proper taxes. assessee not only suppressed receipts in account books produced before IT authorities but also managed to obtain wrong certificates from A.I.R. It was clear case of concealment and in this respect we agree with order of CIT(A) fully. appeal of assessee and cross-objection raised to effect that whole of penalty should have been cancelled are rejected. Now coming to appeal of Department, following grounds have been raised in appeal of Department: " (i) On facts and in circumstances of case, CIT(A) erred in concluding that receipts of Rs. 5,85,461 disclosed by assessee were net receipts. (ii) On facts and in circumstances of case, CIT(A) erred in concluding that decision of Supreme Court in case of Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar vs. CIT (supra), is applicable to facts of case. (iii) On facts and in circumstances of case, CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to give finding on quantum of income of assessee. (iv) On facts and in circumstances of case, CIT(A) erred in reducing penalty to Rs. 23,591 and allowing relief of Rs. 25,089. " In first ground it is mentioned that CIT(A) erred in concluding that receipts of Rs. 5,85,461 were net receipts as disclosed by assessee. This ground of appeal is not correct ground at all. CIT(A) has held in para 3 of his appellate order as under: " actual net receipts for year amounted to Rs. 8,21,373 exclusive o f value of material supplied. appellant had shown receipts at R s . 5,58,461. Thus, receipts have been declared short to extent of Rs. 2,35,912. " Thus, CIT(A) has not concluded that net receipts of assessee were only Rs. 5,85,461. He has merely mentioned that assessee had declared receipts at Rs. 5,85,461 which were far lesser than actual receipts. This ground being incorrect is rejected. next ground taken in Departmental appeal is that CIT(A) erred i n concluding that decision of Supreme Court in Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar's case (supra) is applicable in facts of case. Departmental Representative has argued that in said case before Supreme Court it was found as fact that materials remained property of Government in substance and in reality and these remained in custody of Government. These were only issued from time to time for being used in works and assessee had no opportunity to use materials otherwise. Thus, their Lordships of Supreme Court held that in facts of that case no element of profit was involved in turnover represented by cost of materials supplied by Government to assessee. It is argued that their Lordships of Patna High Court in case of Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 116 (Pat) have held as under: " answer to question as to whether value of materials supplied by Government would figure for purpose of ascertaining contractor's net profit would be different according to form of contract. For example, in overall contract, net profit will have to be ascertained upon entire value of contract, including value of materials also. In works contract, value of materials has to be wholly excluded, because contractor has no concern whatsoever with materials except for purpose of putting them into shape as desired by person giving contract. In lump sum contract, that part of value of materials which assessee arranged himself, has to be included in determining his net profits from contract. So far as supply of materials made by Government Department is concerned it has again to be seen whether supply was made by Department to assessee just as one selling its goods to purchaser, or whether supplies were made to assessee keeping ownership over materials supplied by supplier himself. In latter case, value of materials cannot be included in gross receipts from contract, because assessee had no control whatsoever over materials. It was just given to it by other party to be used in contract and assessee never got concerned other party to be used in contract and assessee never got concerned about its value. Therefore, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to whether value of materials should or should not be included in contractor's turnover from business, for determining his net profits. In instant case assessee-firm did not maintain stock register for materials received from Government Department or for materials purchased by assessee itself. assessee also did not maintain issue register. Since there were no other circumstance to show that materials were throughout under control of Government Department and were not under control of assessee (contractor) except for purpose of using it in construction, Tribunal was right in holding that gross payment should be adopted as basis for working out profit of assessee. " It was, thus, argued by Departmental Representative that it cannot be held as rule that any contractor would not earn any profit on cost of materials supplied. It depends on facts of each case and if materials were supplied to assessee and assessee became owner of materials and used materials in his own way, having ownership over materials supplied to him, ratio of decision in Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar's case (supra) could not apply according to decision of their Lordships of Patna High Court in case of Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi (supra). We have considered arguments of Departmental Representative and we are of opinion that argument is correct. In case under consideration before us it is not proved and it is not shown that materials were under ownership of Government all time and these were under custody of Government all time and these were only issued to assessee from time to time for execution of contract work and that assessee had no control over it. As all these facts have neither been shown nor proved, it cannot be held that ratio of decision of their Lordships of Supreme Court in Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar's case (supra) would apply. We hold that CIT(A) was not correct and was not justified in excluding value of materials supplied while computing profit of assessee and that also while dealing with appeal of assessee against order under s. 271(1)(c) of ITO levying penalty for concealment. Once quantum of appeal has been decided and net income worked out therein while dealing with appeal against penalty order, CIT(A) cannot come to different total income contrary to conclusion given in quantum appeal. Further, such conclusion was neither correct nor was in accordance with actual facts as discussed above. We hold that CIT(A) was not correct in holding on facts of case that there was no profit element on turnover represented by cost of materials supplied. Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 of Department, therefore, are allowed. As far as ground of appeal No. 4 is concerned, according to finding given above in this order, reduction in amount of penalty allowed by CIT(A) is cancelled and amount of penalty levied by ITO at Rs. 48,680 is restored. In result, appeal of Department is allowed and cross- objection of assessee is rejected. appeal of assessee has already been rejected as mentioned above in this order. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. DEVANAND SINGH JOGENDRA SINGH