assessee is aggrieved of order dt. 15th March, 1985 of ld. AAC, Ghaziabad, by which he confirmed order of ITO levying penalty of Rs. 8,000 against assessee under s. 271(1)( c) for asst. yr. 1979-80. assessee is individual. For asst. yr. 1979-80 in question she filed her return on 27th June, 1979 declaring income of Rs. 2,440. revised return was filed by her later showing interest income of Rs. 5,045. During course of assessment proceedings, assessee claimed that at time of her marriage (solemnised on 16th Jan., 1979) she got cash gifts amounting to Rs. 20,000 and other gifts representing articles of jewellery, coins, silverwares etc. to extent of Rs. 46,276. However, ITO took view that there was no evidence to prove said gifts. Accordingly, he made addition of Rs. 63,276 (Rs.43,276 + Rs. 20,000) as unexplained investment. In appeal, learned AAC accepted cash gifts. However, he held that gifts of various items of silver utensils valued at Rs. 23,732 was not established. Therefore, addition of Rs. 26,000 is round figures was upheld. Thereafter, with reference to said addition, ITO initiated penalty proceedings against assessee under s. 271(1) (c). However, ITO did not accept assessee's submission. According to him, assessee had at no time disclosed identity of persons or relatives from whom substantial quantities of silver utensils were received by way of gifts. Accordingly, he held that assessee was liable to penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in sum of Rs. 8,000. maximum and minimum penalty leviable with reference to said addition, however worked out to Rs. 11,776 and Rs. 5,888 respectively. In appeal, learned AAC noticed that aforesaid addition of Rs. 26,000 had been upheld in further appeal by Tribunal vide its order dt. 14th Feb., 1985 in ITA No. 5727/Del/1983. ld. AAC relying upon observations of Tribunal in said appeal concluded that case was covered by cl. (b) o f Expln. to s. 271(1) (c ) as applicable for assessment year in question. Accordingly, he confirmed levy of penalty. That is how assessee has come up in appeal before us. Shri. H.C. Malik, learned counsel for assessee, submitted that explanation given by assessee has been partially accepted and that partial acceptance and partial non- acceptance of explanation was not result of any concealment of income. According to him, said explanation was bonafide in terms of proviso to Expln. I (B) of s. 271(1) ( c) referred to above. In order to support said contention reliance was placed by him on factors: (1) that return was filed with detailed foot notes, (2) that as assessee did not make any investment provisions of s. 69 were not applicable, (3) that there was no column in income-tax return requiring declaration of any deemed income and (4) that addition had been made and sustained on estimate basis. Reliance was also placed by him on following decisions: Smt. Kamlawati Raizada vs. CED (1976) 105 ITR 703 (All) Tara Devi Goenka vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 14 (Cal) CIT vs. Jewels Paradise (1975) 101 ITR 265 (Kar) Durga Sharan Udho Prasad vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 270 (Pat) CIT vs. Lal Babu (1980) 15 CTR (Pat) 173: (1980) 122 ITR 1006 (Pat) CIT vs. Suchitra Sen (1982) 26 CTR (Cal) 8: (1982) 135 ITR 797 (Cal) CIT vs. C.K. Naha & Bros. (1979) 117 ITR 19 (Cal) CIT vs. Sardar Bhagat Singh (1983) 35 CTR (Pat) 1: (1983) 142 ITR 836 (Pat) CIT vs. Chota Nagpur Glass Works (1984) 39 CTR (Pat) 97: (1984) 145 ITR 225 (Pat) CIT vs. Bhimji Bhanjee & Co., (1983) 32 CTR (Bom) 296: (1984) 146 ITR 145 (Bom) CIT vs. Rudrappan and Co., (1984) 147 ITR 204 (Mad) Addl., CIT vs. Jankidas Mohanlal (1984) 43 CTR (Pat) 309: (1984) 150 ITR 588 (Pat) Addl. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1984) 42 CTR (Del) 188: (1986) 157 ITR 822 (Del) CIT vs. M.B. Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1986) 57 CTR (Cal) 307: (1986) 158 ITR 509 (Cal) CIT vs. Bhuramal Manikchand (1981) 20 CTR (Cal) 244: (1981) 130 ITR 129 (Cal) ITO vs. Gita Devi, Smt. (1986) 55 CTR (Trib) 11 (Jab) ITO vs. Palaniswamy, P. (1986) 16 ITD 529 (Mad) Order dt. 29th April, 1986 of Delhi Bench 'B' in WTA No. 1390/Del/1984 (Mohit Kumar Jain vs. WTO) On other hand, Smt. Archana Ranjan, learned Departmental Representative kly relied upon orders of Income-tax authorities as also on order dt. 17th Oct., 1986 of Delhi Bench 'B' in ITA Nos. 4292 & 4293/Del/1984 (ITO vs. Ravindra Kumar Shamli). We have considered rival submissions as also decisions referred to above. first thing which has to be noticed is that though findings in assessment proceedings are relevant, they cannot be treated as conclusive for pruposes of imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c). assessment year involved is 1979-80. Since finding of IT authorities was that assessee had offered explanation which she was not able to substantiate we have to see whether, in terms of provisio appended to Expln. I, explanation of assessee was bona fide and all facts relating to same and material to computation of her total income had been disclosed by her. perusal of assessment order dt. 27th March, 1982 shows that assessee had filed detailed explanation accompanying return to effect that she had received various gifts at time of her marriage. assessee had married Shri Ajai Bindal s/o. Shri Brij Bhushan Bindal of Modern Industries, Sahihabad. In order dt. 16th Nov., 1983 of learned AAC it is mentioned that before ITO, assessee had filed full details of gifts received and that assessee herself belongs to well-to-do. Aggarwal family of Banaras which is widely known in business circles and had interest in several concerns including Kanhiya Hotel (Pvt) Ltd. and several other family businesses being carried on by them. ld. AAC also referred in his order to fact that likewise assessee's in-laws were also well-to-do family of Ghaziabad and were carrying on business in name of M/s. Modern industries, Sahihabad. assessee has also placed on record details of her family particulars and family businesses. assessment order records fact that assessee had filed confirmations in respect of certain gifts. assessee had given list of parties from whom cash gifts were received. So far as confirmations are concerned, ITO had stated in assessment order that assessee's advocate showed reluctance to contact respective parties in order to obtain their confirmations for various amounts, having regard to status of lady and family. When matter went up in first appeal before ld. AAC he noticed that various gifts were of items of values ranging from Rs. 500 and above excepting value of silver utensils, (Rs. 25,732.) Since there was no evidence regarding gifts of these utensils, he sustained addition to extent of Rs. 26,000. Tribunal in its order dt, 14th Feb., 1985 also noticed that there was no evidence in shape of confirmatory letters or affidavits. Therefore, for want of positive evidence, addition was confirmed. There was no finding by any of authorities that claim of assessee was false or bogus. We have gone through details of silver utensils consisting of rice plates, full plates, half plates, dongas, spoons & glasses. mere failure on part of assessee to produce evidence regarding gifts of silver utensils cannot show that her explanation was not bona fide. This is particulary by so when matter is viewed in background of status of assessee's own family and family of her in-laws as mentioned above. Looking to totality or all facts and circumstances, we are of considered view that there was neither any concealment of particulars of income nor of any concealment of income in terms of provisions of s. 271(1) ( c) as applicable for asst. yr. 1979-80 in question. Each case turns on its own facts and, therefore, it is not necessary to refer to facts given in cases referred to on both sides. In result, appeal is allowed. *** SMT. REKHA BINDAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICER