JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by J. P. Devadhar J. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. issues raised in both these applications are common and, therefore, same are heard together and disposed of by common order. I. T. A. No. 17 of 1995 is filed by assessee against order of Tribunal relating to quantum addition sustained by Tribunal. I. T. A. No. 84 of 1995 is filed by Revenue against order of Tribunal deleting penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. assessee is individual carrying on business in money-lending and purchase and sale of silver and silver ornaments. According to assessee, on August 19, 1988, some persons approached him at his shop and offered some gold and golden ornaments for sale. deal was settled for Rs. 3 lakhs and assessee was to collect gold and gold ornaments for exchange of sum of Rs. 3 lakhs at Government rest house at Katol. As assessee was proceeding towards Government rest house with cash amount of Rs. 3 lakhs someone had snatched away his bag containing money and, therefore, he had lodged police complaint. During course of assessment, Assessing Officer sought explanation regarding source of acquiring amount of Rs. 3 lakhs which was subject-matter of police complaint. assessee explained that out of sum of Rs. 3 lakhs, Rs. 2.50 lakhs was received from his two sons and remaining amount of Rs. 50,000 was his own savings from agricultural income. Assessing Officer rejected explanation and added tax on entire amount of Rs. 3 lakhs and also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act. Being aggrieved by aforesaid order, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who uphold addition as also penalty. Being aggrieved by said order, assessee filed further appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and Tribunal, while upholding quantum addition, deleted penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Act. Since reference applications filed under section 256(1) of Act by assessee as well as Revenue have been rejected, present applications under section 256(2) of Act have been filed. Learned counsel for assessee relying upon judgments of apex court in case of Dr. T. A. Quereshi v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 547; [2007] 2 SCC 759 and CIT v. Piara Singh reported in [1980] 124 ITR 40 submitted that Tribunal was not justified in sustaining quantum addition and in any event Tribunal ought to have allowed said amount as business expenditure. Similarly, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that, in facts of present case, as assessee failed to establish source of income, Tribunal was not justified in deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act. In our opinion, aforesaid arguments of both counsel deserve consideration. Thus, order passed by Tribunal gives rise to question of law. Accordingly we allow both applications. In I. T. A. No. 17 of 1995, Tribunal is directed to forward statement of case on following questions of law: (1) Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that assessee was owner of entire sum of Rs. 3 lakhs in spite of fact that assessee had adduced evidence to contrary in respect of sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and thus discharged burden of proof laid on him under section 110 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872? (2) Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that loss of Rs. 3 lakhs was not incurred in course of business of assessee only on grounds that assessee did not carry on business in gold ornaments and disallowing claim of assessee in spite of Supreme Court s decision in CIT v. Piara Singh [1980] 124 ITR 40. In I. T. A. No. 84 of 1995 Tribunal is directed to forward statement of case on following questions of law: (1) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that penalty of Rs. 1,75,000 imposed for concealment was such that it needed to be cancelled? (2) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of Act does not apply to facts of this case even though explanation given by assessee was found to be false by Assessing Officer? (3) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Department has not discharged its onus of proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by assessee? Both applications are disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. *** PRABHAKAR BHAIYAJI GHODE v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX