RAM RATTAN, A.M. This appeal by assessee is directed against order of AAC relating to asst. yr. 1974-75, By impugned order, AAC has not only confirmed penalty imposed by ITO under s. 271(1)(c) at Rs. 1761 but has enhanced same by Rs. 4,802. This case has peculiar facts, We, therefore, consider it worthwhile to state in brief same. In this case, assessee field return of its total income declaring income of Rs. 15,098. This consisted of share income from M/s Surinder Kumar Ajay Kumar, and M/s Subash Chand Yashpal. This was accepted under s. 143(1) of IT Act on 3rd July, 1975. After assessment was completed under s. 143(1) assessee filed another return suo motu declaring share income from two firms as shown in first return, In addition she also declared interest of Rs. 4,802 from M/s Raj Rishi Chemical Industries. On this return assessment was made under s, 143(1) on 30th Sept., 1977. ITO also initiated penalty proceedings while completing assessment and imposed penalty of Rs. 4,802 with reference to interest income of Rs. 4, 802 not shown in first return. This penalty was, however, cancelled by AAC, Ambala Range, Ambala vide his order dt. 27th Dec., 1982 in Appeal No. 114/Kurk/81-82 along with two other appeals. It appears that assessee filed still another return on 17th Nov., 1980 (hereafter called third return). in this return also share income from two firms was shown as before in first and second returns. Interest from M/s Raj Rishi Chemical Industries was also shown at Rs. 4,802 as in second return. In addition amount of Rs. 388 was also shown as interest income from M/s Ramdita Mal Om Prakash. After filing of above return, ITO issued notice under s 148 dt. 5th Dec., 1980 calling upon assessee to file return of her total income for asst. yr. 1974-75 for making reassessment. assessee vide her letter dt. 25th April,1981., informed ITO to treat return already filed on 17th Dec.,1980 as return in response to notice under s. 148. Acting on this letter, ITO made reassessment. In addition to returned income, ITO made addition of Rs. 4,756 (3,367+1,380) on account of cash credits. He, therefore initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income aggregating to Rs. 5,144 (4,756+388) and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,144. Subsequently ITO rectified penalty to Rs.1,768. In other words, penalty with reference to amount of Rs. 3,376 was cancelled in rectification proceedings and penalty for remaining two amounts of Rs. 1,380 on account of unexplained cash credit and Rs. 388 in account of interest was retained. Aggrieved by order of ITO, assessee went in appeal before AAC. AAC not only confirmed penalty of Rs. 1,768 but also enhanced same by further sum of Rs. 4,802. According to him, penalty was to be levied on account of difference between first return and third return in response to notice under s, 148. He held that in first return assessee had not shown interest income of Rs. 4,802 also and, therefore, penalty to be levied with regard to following three items of concealed income, (i) Rs. 4, 802: Interest income from M/s Raj Rishi Chemical Industries. (ii) Rs. 388: Interest Income from M/s Ramditta Mal Om Prakash, and (iii) Rs.1,380: Unexplained cash credit. AAC accordingly raised penalty to Rs. 6,570 against penalty of Rs. 1,768 imposed by ITO as rectified resulting in addition of Rs. 4,892. Id. counsel for assessee has vehemently contended that penalty imposed was uncalled for. He contended that interest income was shown by assessee suo motu without any notices having been issued by Department. With regard to cash credits, he contended that it was case of not believing explanation for which no penalty could be imposed. He further contended that penalty with reference to amount of Rs. 4,802 was levied by ITO while making second assessment but was cancelled in appeal by AAC and AAC has exceeded his jurisdiction in again imposing penalty with reference to that amount by way of enhancement. learned Departmental Representative on other hand, has supported order of AAC. He has contended that penalty has rightly been calculated with reference to concealment in first return. We have given our careful consideration to rival submissions. Firstly we would like to consider as to whether AAC was right in enhancing penalty by amount of Rs. 4,802, being concealment on account of interest from Raj Rishi Chemical Industries. In our opinion, AAC was not justified in doing so, Penalty with reference to this amount had already been levied by ITO but was cancelled by AAC as noted by us earlier. We were given to understand that no appeal was filed against said order of AAC by Revenue. That order therefore, has become final. AAC therefore could not levy penalty with reference to amount which was already considered by ITO and AAC in earlier proceedings. penalty of Rs. 4,802 enhanced by AAC, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is cancelled. With regard to interest income of Rs. 388 not shown in first and second returns, we are of opinion that AAC was justified in confirming penalty with reference to this amount. assessee had not shown this amount in first or second return. default of concealment was committed on date when it was not shown in first return. Penalty with reference to this amount of Rs. 388 is therefore, upheld. With regard to cash credit of Rs. 1,380 explanation given was that partly it represented her pin money and partly sale of potatoes. ITO held that purchase/sale vouchers of potatoes were not shown and availability of pin money was also without any evidence. He, therefore, levied penalty with reference to this amount which has been upheld by AAC. In our opinion, assessee deserves to succeed so far as penalty with reference to pin money of Rs. 1, 380 is concerned. Pin money by lady is her savings of amount given by her husband for household expenses. ITO has not brought on record as to what type of evidence was required for explaining part of pin money out of Rs. 1,380. assessee was not regularly dealing in sale of potatoes so as to maintain vouchers for sale. In our opinion, no penalty with reference to this amount was exigible. Penalty of Rs. 1,380 is, therefore, deleted. In result, appeal is partly allowed. *** KRISHNA KUMARI v. INCOME TAX OFFICER