JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by J. P. Devadhar J. All these applications, filed by Revenue under section 256(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961, were admitted on questions of law raised in respective income-tax applications. assessment years involved in all these applications are assessment year 1983-84 to assessment year 1986-87. basic question raised in all these applications is, whether Tribunal was justified in deleting penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Income- tax Act, 1961? respondents-assessees are commission agents deriving income from commission on sale of oranges/mosambis. assessments for respective assessment years were completed by accepting commission income disclosed in return of income filed by assessees. There was search action at business premises of assessees on July 23, 1987. During course of search operation, no incriminating documents were found. However, Assessing Officer collected information regarding cess paid by assessees to Agricultural Produce Market Committee (the APMC for short). From cess paid by assessees to APMC which was 0.55 per cent. of turnover, Assessing Officer calculated backwards and arrived at total turnover of assessees. As commission was usually charged at seven per cent. Assessing Officer computed commission on total turnover determined by him which was much higher than commission income disclosed by assessees in their returns of income. When assessees were confronted with above computation, assessees submitted that they have not received any commission in excess of amount disclosed in their respective books of account. However, with view to buy peace, assessees filed revised returns disclosing additional income. Without making any further investigation to refute contentions of assessees that they have not received commission at seven per cent. Assessing Officer accepted revised returns filed by assessees and completed assessment and after initiating penalty proceedings, levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act. Being aggrieved by penalty orders passed by Assessing Officers, assessees filed appeals before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who deleted penalty inter alia on ground that fact that assessees have offered additional amount as income after search cannot be ground to levy penalty because no concealment of income was discovered during course of search or thereafter. Being aggrieved by aforesaid order, Revenue filed appeals before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and same were dismissed. reference applications filed by Revenue under section 256(1) were also rejected by Tribunal. Hence, Revenue has filed present applications under section 256(2) of Act. In all these cases, it is not in dispute that during course of search, no incriminating documents were found at premises of assessees. On basis of books maintained by assessees and cess paid by assessees to APMC, Assessing Officer calculated total turnover. It is not in dispute that particulars received by Assessing Officer from APMC did not disclose any particulars regarding actual commission received by assessees. Generally, it may be that on sale of oranges/mosambis, commission is paid at seven per cent. however it was possible as contended by assessees that in some cases commission was paid at less than seven per cent. Moreover, in present case, Tribunal has accepted contentions of assessees that there was practice by commission agents to give return commission and, therefore, Assessing Officer was not justified in computing commission income at seven per cent. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has further held that income computed by Assessing Officer was purely on estimate basis and there is no clear cut acceptance on part of assessees that additional amount offered by them was commission income received by them. Tribunal has further held that having failed to rebut explanation given by assessees, Assessing Officer could not have levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Assessing Officer could not have levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act. Thus, decisions of Tribunal in all these cases that there was no detection of concealment of income is based on finding of fact. Therefore, in our opinion, questions raised by Revenue cannot be said to give rise to referable questions of law. Accordingly, all these applications are dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. BALRAM GIDDUMAL