P. S. DHILLON, J. M.: assessee has preferred this appeal against order dt. 18th Feb., 1985 of Shri S. C. Gangwar, AAC of IT, B-Range, Indore, who partly allowed appeal against order dt. 31st March, 1984 of Shri N. R. Gupta, ITO, D-Ward, Indore. relevant facts in brief are that assessee is individual. assessment year involved is 1965-66 previous year of which ended on 31st Dec., 1964. business of assessee is that of purchase and sale of iron and steel. assessee did not make any return under s. 139 (1) nor filed any in response to notice under s. 148 served on 14th June, 1968. assessment was completed under s. 144. of Act on 29th Jan., 1970 which was reopened under s. 146. After completion of assessment assessee filed retune of income showing income from business at Rs. 13,618. Thereafter revised return was filed on 21st Dec., 1972 declaring income from business at Rs. 17,276. ITO issued notice under s. 143 (2) which was not complied with and, therefore, ITO again completed assessment under s. 144 on 30th March 1982. ITO assessed income from undisclosed sources on account of unexplained investment of Rs. 17,500 with M/s. Indore Iron Syndicate, Indore. assessee went in appeal before AAC. AAC sustained addition from undisclosed sources at Rs. 7,000 as against Rs. 17,500 of ITO. However, ITO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271 (1) (c) of Act and imposed penalty at Rs. 17,000 for reasons mentioned in para 4 to 6 of his order. In appeal, AAC reduced it at Rs. 12,000 for reasons mentioned in para 4 of this order. assessee being aggrieved has preferred this appeal. Shri R. K. Khandelwal, ld. counsel for assessee, contends that AAC has erred in sustaining penalty at Rs. 12,000; that AAC is unjustified in holding that penalty is imposable on assessee under s. 271 (1) (c) of Act, that penalty levied under s. 271 (1) (c) amounting to Rs. 12,000 is unjustified and bad in law; alternatively excessive. Reliance is placed on paper book from pages 1 and 2. On other hand, Shri J. K. Goyal, ld. Departmental Representative relying on order of Tribunal dt. 20th Sept., 1985, contends that case is covered by decision of Tribunal in ITA No. 933/Ind/ 84-85 (A. Y. 1977- 78) in case of Kantilal Shivlal Burhanpur. In availing right of rebuttal, Shri R. K. Khandelwal , counsel for assessee contends that in case penalty is imposed in proceedings of revised return where assessee showed income at Rs. 17,275 while it was assessed at Rs. 18,500. Therefore, difference in income shown and assessed is meagre which is to be over-looked. I have heard rival contentions and gone through record before me. order of AAC shows that after completion of assessment under s. 144 on 29th Jan., 1970 assessee filed return showing income from business at Rs. 13,618; that in mean time ITO collected some evidence from Sales-tax Deptt. which showed that income of assessee from business was much more than income disclosed by him in return which fact was pointed out to assessee during course of assessment proceedings; that assessee thereafter filed revised return on 21st Dec. 1972 declaring income from business at Rs. 17,275 as against income from business declared in original return at Rs. 13,618. These findings of AAC have gone unrebutted. Therefore, I hold that it is incorrect to say that assessee filed revised return voluntarily and as such he cannot be allowed to be benefited by it. Hence, plea of assessee is rejected when he says that on account of it assessee is to be held as acting in good faith. It is further clear from record that addition sustained by AAC at Rs. 7,000 was confirmed by Tribunal vide its order dt. 23rd March 1983 in ITA No. 1393/ Ind/82 in case of assessed. Thus, in case of assessee Explain. 1 to s. 271 (1) (c) is applicable as income shown is less by 80 per cent that of income assessee. Therefore, initial onus in upon assessee and to discharge it assessee has to show that he has not filed inaccurate particulars of income for assessment year under consideration under fraud or wilful or gross neglect. This onus is not discharged in this case by assessee at all because ITO had pointed out to assessee that assessee should have shown more income in assessment year under consideration, which is evident from particulars he has collected from Sales-tax Deptt. records and after requisition by him, books of accounts and documents. It is also pertinent to note that assessee produced books of accounts before Sales-tax authorities but these were never produced before ITO despite specific asking and in view of glaring excessory of particulars furnished in income-tax return, difference between proprietary business income, as assessed (Rs. 18,500) and as per return furnished (Rs. 13,618), was held to be income particulars whereof have been concealed by ITO. assessee has not been able to meet this finding of ITO even at this stage. Further, in confirming addition of Rs. 17,000, Tribunal held that assessee has shown household expenses of Rs. 50 per month, which were nominal and it could not be believed that assessee could meet household expenses within this amount. household expenses are always there in knowledge of householder and if householder is not showing these truly and showing these highly low then it cannot be held that assessee has not acted under wilful neglect or fraudulently. Further, Tribunal under such circumstances in case Kantilal Shivlal hold that burden was on assessee to show that he did not conceal particulars of his income which assessee failed to discharge that from finding already arrived in assessment proceedings, it was evident that Prima- facie assessee had concealed particulars of his income. Reliance is also placed on parse 3 of order of Tribunal. Thus, I hold that finding of Tribunal in case supra is applicable to facts of assessee s case, Further, AAC s finding wherein he has held that in case of assessee penalty under s. 271 (1) (c) is leviable is based upon reason supported from material on record and assessee is not in position to rebut these. Therefore, his findings have also gone unrebutted. In view of my above discussion and reason thereto, I held that in case In view of my above discussion and reason thereto, I held that in case o f assessee penalty is imposable as assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income for assessment year under consideration with contumacious conduct. Since in case proviso 1 to s. 271 (1) (c) is applicable being income assessed more than income shown by 80 per cent and assessee has failed to show that it is not there on account of his wilful or gross neglect or fraud on his part, as I have observed above. Accordingly, penalty sustained by AAC is confirmed on totality of facts and circumstances. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** MOHANLAL CHUNNILAL KHANDELWAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICER