D.C. AGRAWAL, A.M.: ORDER This is appeal filed by assessee against order of learned CIT(A) confirming levy of penalty for concealment of income under s. 271(1)(c) for Rs. 2,53,000. 2. facts of case are that assessee is renowned manufacturer of industrial swing machines. It has filed return of income disclosing income of Rs. 5.94,864 which was originally processed under s. 143(1)(a). Subsequently, case was picked up for scrutiny and assessment was completed under s. 143(3) on income of Rs. 13,28,076. main addition of Rs. 7,22,740 was in respect of commission on sale of machines claimed to have been paid by assessee to various technically skilled workers through whom machines were sold. During course of assessment proceedings, AO noted that assessee debited sum of Rs. 7,26,613 under head Commission . AO required assessee to file details from which it was noted by AO that out of total sum of commission so paid, sum of Rs. 7,22,740 pertained to Kanpur office while Rs. 3,873 pertained to Delhi office. AO required assessee to justify claim in respect of commission. assessee submitted list of persons along with addresses to whom commission was claimed to have been paid by him during year on sale of machines. AO then sent his Inspector to verify addresses and payments. Inspector reported that most of addresses are correct but persons whose names are mentioned could not be contacted on account of they being out. In this regard it would be useful to refer relevant part from order of AO as under : "The Inspector who was assigned inquiry reported that though addresses of most of persons appearing in details as filed by assessee were found correct but none of them could be contacted on account of their non-availability at time of visit of Inspector. However, in few stray cases addresses were not found correct." AO then required assessee to produce persons to whom commission was claimed to have been paid but it seems that those persons were not produced. AO carried out some enquiries from bank and found that some cheques which were claimed to have been issued to these persons were withdrawn in cash. He also inferred that there is no evidence of services being rendered by these persons. Accordingly, AO issued show-cause notice in response to which assessee surrendered sum of Rs. 7,22,740 as his income with following request : "These mechanics are uneducated but technically skilled and command good respect in their field and are also afraid to come to income-tax office for interrogation but are ready to confirm for having paid commission. We are ready to produce any of these or all artisans before your goodself for confirmation of payment of commission. During proceedings we called all artisans for confirming having paid commission. This exercise is very tedious and costly and time consuming and cannot be done again and again hence to buy peace of mind and to avoid these hassles, we are offering to put these expenses to tax provided that no penal action under law whatsoever be taken against us." AO, however, initiated penalty proceedings as according to him assessee was not able to substantiate expenditure. 3 . In penalty proceedings assessee explained that at time of visit by Inspector artisans were away for work and they could not meet Inspector in person. Most of artisans did not have bank account and, therefore, they withdrew money of cheques in cash by signing on back of cheques. From this it could not be inferred that payment is wrong or not genuine. It was also explained that because of payment of commission, sales of machines have gone multi-fold as artisans to whom commission is paid have recommended purchase of our machines. These artisans worked in factories and recommended our machines which are purchased by factory owners. In lieu of these, assessee pays commission to them but it is paid after end of year. Further they did not come to income-tax office because of fear. It is with this condition that penalty proceedings will not be initiated, commission payment was surrendered. This explanation of assessee is dt. 25th June, 2004. AO, however, disbelieved on explanation and levied penalty under cl. (B) of Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c) by holding that explanation furnished by assessee is not substantiated. He accordingly levied penalty of Rs. 2,53,000 being minimum. 4. learned CIT(A), on other hand, confirmed penalty by holding as under : "I have considered arguments of learned Authorised Representative and gone through observation of AO. I have also perused case law s relied upon by learned Authorised Representative. I find that AO had made spot inquiry through Inspector of Income-tax about recipients of t h e commission. I further found that AO provided opportunity to appellant to produce said recipients for examination but they could not be produced despite specific direction. There is no evidence which can suggest that recipients of commission were ever produced before AO and he denied to examine them. In substance through proper inquiry, AO concluded that expenditure by way of commission to extent of Rs. 7,22,740 was non-genuine/bogus. Since AO had examined and established expenditure as bogus, subsequent surrender of said amount by assessee for taxation had no meaning. Further after establishing expenses as bogus, request for non-initiation of penalty proceeding by assessee was meaningless. As regards case law as relied upon by learned Authorised Representative, I find that these cases are not helpful to appellant because these cases are distinguishable on facts. Thus, considering whole facts together and legal provision, I hold that appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars by showing bogus commission amounting to Rs. 7,22,740 against which penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is attracted. Thus, action of AO for levying penalty to extent of Rs. 2,53,000 which is almost minimum penalty, is justified and same is upheld." 5. main thrust of learned CIT(A) is that AO has concluded that expenditure by way of commission was non-genuine/bogus. 6 . Against this learned Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that artisans are uneducated. They are working in various factories. They are recommending our machines to factory owners. Since machines are sold through these artisans on their recommendations, commission is paid to them. Such commission was paid in earlier years and was also paid in subsequent years as is evident from following chart : S.No. F.Y. A.Y. Sales Commission % 1996- 1997- 1. 1,750.50 - 97 98 1997- 1998- 2. 4,542,681.63 - 98 99 1998- 1999- 3. 22,558,471.68 1,127,580.50 5.00 99 00 1999- 2000- 4. 23,895,741.63 713,630.50 2.99 00 01 2000- 2001- 5. 24,428,714.19 726,613.00 2.97 01 02 2001- 2002- 6. 54,588,982.77 873,434.00 1.60 02 03 2002- 2003- 7. 44,238,007.61 847,400.00 1.92 03 04 2003- 2004- 8. 72,704,822.00 784,423.00 1.08 04 05 2004- 2005- 9. 100,589,711.12 589,701.00 .59 05 06 2005- 2006- 10. 113,700,269.32 1,316,490.00 1.16 06 07 Commission in asst. yr. 1998-99 was 5 per cent which was reduced this year to 2.97 per cent which in subsequent years is further reduced to 1 per cent or so. Department has accepted return of income in some years. It shows that fact of payment of commission to artisans is accepted by Department and it cannot be said to be bogus. Department has also accepted payment of commission on sale of these machines in respect of Delhi office where payment of Rs. 3,873 has been made. No addition of this amount had been made. Further, learned AO (Inspector) had visited residences of artisans whose addresses were provided by us. Those addresses were found correct though artisans could not be personally available on account they being out for job. In fact there is no material with AO to show that we have concealed any income or filed inaccurate particulars. We had surrendered money and paid taxes on account of our inability to produce artisans as they were scared to come to income-tax office. We did not want to annoy them or cause harassment to them by repeatedly calling to income-tax office as it would have hurt our business interest and affect our sales which were mostly done through them. Thus mere disallowance of expenditure in form of commission would not make assessee liable for penalty under s. 271(1)(c). learned Authorised Representative of assessee relied on decision in cases of National Textiles vs. CIT (2000) 164 CTR (Guj) 209 : (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj), CIT vs. Janakiram Mills Ltd. (2005) 196 CTR (Mad) 551 : (2005) 275 ITR 403 (Mad), CIT vs. Cafco Syndicate Shipping Co. (2007) 294 ITR 134 (Mad), Dy. CIT vs. Rajan H. Shinde (2004) 85 TTJ (Pune)(TM) 178 : (2005) 93 ITD 1 (Pune)(TM). He also referred to decision in cases of Bharat Rice Mill vs. CIT (2006) 200 CTR (All) 481 : (2005) 278 ITR 599 (All) and CIT vs. D & H Secheron Electrodes Ltd. (2006) 203 CTR (MP) 164 : (2008) 296 ITR 193 (MP). main thrust in these decisions as per learned Authorised Representative is that mere disallowance on expenditure penalty for concealment cannot be levied. There is no finding by AO that expenditure is bogus or not genuine. learned CIT(A) is so mentioning without there being any material on record. In fact AO has not given such finding either in assessment order or in penalty order. AO has levied penalty on basis that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income as he has not substantiated his claim. 7. appeal is late by 222 days. learned Authorised Representative has filed affidavit and prayed for condonation of delay. He had submitted that appeal could not be filed in time because order of CIT(A) received by assessee was sent to his chartered accountant Sri J.P.S. Bhatia, who gave it to Sri J.P.Gupta, F.C.A. for preparation of appeal as he is senior. appeal papers were misplaced then prosecution notice was received by assessee then papers for appeal were searched and then appeal is filed. 8. learned Departmental Representative, on other hand, submitted that there is no evidence that appeal papers were misplaced. There is no reasonable cause for not filing appeal in time. Therefore, appeal should not be admitted. 9. On merit, learned Departmental Representative submitted that case of assessee falls under cl. (B) of Expln. 1 to s. 271(1)(c) as assessee has failed to substantiate explanation furnished by him. Since AO had already started inquiries, assessee had no option left but to surrender claim of commission. Therefore, case squarely fits in Expln. (B). He supported his arguments by relying on following decisions : (1) CIT vs. D.K.B. & Co. (2000) 161 CTR (Ker) 187 : (2000) 243 ITR 618 (Ker); (2) Benaras Chemical Factory vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 96 (All); (3) Anand Liquors vs. CIT (1996) 136 CTR (Ker) 86 : (1998) 232 ITR 35 (Ker); (4) A.M. Shah vs. CIT (1998) 150 CTR (Guj) 1 : (1999) 238 ITR 415 (Guj). In rejoinder learned Authorised Representative submitted that assessee had been regularly audited, tax audit report is submitted wherein this claim is accepted. There is no dispute on this issue. 10. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Regarding condonation of delay we notice that assessee filed affidavit through its managing director according to which appeal papers were misplaced by one senior counsel Sri J.P. Gupta, F.C.A. Since averments in affidavit remained uncontroverted, we hold that reasons advanced by assessee are satisfactory, we, therefore, condone delay and admit appeal. 11. On merit, we find that by payment of commission, sales of assessee are regularly increasing. percentage of commission in respect of sales is also getting down. In earlier years, Department had accepted fact of payment of commission. In subsequent year also this fact has been accepted. No materials are brought on record by Revenue to show that A O has disputed claim of payment of commission in subsequent years. Further we notice that in current year itself AO has not disputed payment of commission in respect of Delhi office. Therefore, it cannot be denied that payment of commission to artisans or to other persons is regular feature in this line of trade. fact that addresses were supplied by assessee and Inspector had visited those addresses and had found them correct which also shows that claim of assessee could not be prima facie bogus. So far as addition in total income is concerned, inability to file evidence or to produce recipient of commission is sufficient. But for levying penalty under s. 271(1)(c), there has to be some positive material so as to indicate that assessee had concealed particulars of income or had filed inaccurate particulars. In present case even though AO has carried out inquiries, there is nothing on record to show that claim of expenditure by way of commission was bogus. Mere inference on presumption basis as drawn by CIT(A) is not proper. 12. claim of Revenue is that case of assessee squarely falls under Expln. 1(B) to s. 271(1)(c). For sake of convenience, we reproduce Expln. 1 to s. 271(1)(c) as under : "Explanation 1. : Where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of any person under this Act, (A) such person fails to offer explanation or offers explanation which is found by AO or CIT(A) (or CIT) to be false, or (B) such person offers explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all facts relating to same and material to computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then amount added or disallowed in computing total income of such person as result thereof shall, for purposes of cl. (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." 13. Admittedly Expln. 1(A) would not be applicable because assessee had offered explanation for claim and AO had not found such explanation false. Regarding Expln. 1(B), there are three conditions which are required to be satisfied simultaneously. (1) assessee offers explanation which he is not able to substantiate. (2) He fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and (3) All facts relating to same and material to computation of total income have been disclosed by him. Unless AO gives finding on basis of material on record that all three conditions are cumulatively and simultaneously satisfied, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) r/w Expln. 1(B) cannot be levied. In our considered view assessee had offered explanation which on face of it appears to be bona fide inasmuch as addresses of persons given by assessee were found correct and there is no finding by AO that those are not addresses of artisans claimed or that those persons did not receive any commission from assessee. Payment of commission to villagers/artisans/uneducated persons through bearer cheques is common phenomenon. Unless it is found that money of bearer cheques did not really go to payee, it cannot be presumed that payment as claimed was actually not so made. Once, AO had examined bearer cheques, he ought to h v e considered and given finding that money did not really go to claimants, i.e. artisans. extent and level of enquiries cannot result in finding that explanation furnished by assessee was not bona fide. So far as substantiating explanation is concerned in our view furnishing of names and addresses of artisans along with amount so paid to them, regular feature about payment of commission from year to year as borne out from details given above, is prima facie sufficient to show that assessee is paying commission for furthering its sales. learned AO has not pointed out as to what other material fact assessee had not disclosed in support of his claim. penalty is levied only on ground that assessee failed to produce artisans. It may be sufficient for addition, but in our considered view this cannot be sole reason for coming to conclusion that assessee had filed inaccurate particulars. 1 4 . Now we come to various decisions referred to by parties. learned Departmental Representative has first referred to decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 228 : (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC). This is on issue of satisfaction which is not in dispute in present case. Next authority referred to by learned CIT (Departmental Representative) is decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. D.K.B. & Co. (supra). It is held therein that even where assessee agrees to addition with condition that no penalty be imposed, as in present case, Department is still not precluded from penalty proceedings. Tribunal had cancelled penalty on above ground and, therefore, Hon ble Kerala High Court remanded matter back to Tribunal to consider explanation of assessee and decide issue on merit. learned Departmental Representative then referred to decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in Anand Liquors vs. CIT (supra). In this case finding was given that books of account are not maintained properly. claim of salary, commission, etc. was made. There were no vouchers to support expenditure. cash credits in names of partners were also not explained. Therefore, assessee agreed to proposed addition of Rs. 4.48 lakhs. It was held that levy of penalty is justified. In present case undisputed fact is that books of accounts of assessee are audited and in assessment order they are not being rejected. We have gone through assessment order and do not find any discussion about nature of books, method of accounting and their acceptance. On other hand, assessee had filed tax audit report in Form No. 3CA dt. 4th Sept., 2001. Accordingly, this authority would be of no help to Revenue. Learned Departmental Representative then referred to decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in case of Benaras Chemical Factory vs. CIT (supra) wherein it is held that where assessee is making voluntary disclosure of income he is not absolved from penalty. We note that there was finding in that case that assessee was guilty of concealment. In present case, we do not find any such finding by authorities. On other hand, we notice that case of assessee does not fall clearly in Expln. 1 to s. 271(1)(c). 15. learned Departmental Representative then referred to decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in A.M. Shah vs. CIT (supra). learned Departmental Representative has drawn our attention to p. 432 of Report wherein Hon ble Allahabad High Court had discussed concept of filing inaccurate particulars of income as under : "If person obliged to furnish particulars of his income, omits to furnish them, he thereby conceals particulars. This concealment may take various forms. glaring illustration of concealment would be where assessee does not disclose or fully disclose in return, income derived by him which would fall in particular head, e.g., "Income from other sources" while disclosing his income falling under other heads of income prescribed by s. 14 of Act. To extent he does not disclose that income, he conceals particulars of income. obligation is not only to disclose particulars of income but to disclose them correctly and completely. If while disclosing particulars of income in return he puts them under wrong head, he can be said to be furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income can be made inaccurate in variety of ways, glaring illustration of which would be where assessee while stating income under particular head, works out income chargeable to tax after making deductions which are falsely made. Such process would make particulars of income inaccurate. In all such cases where income is not disclosed against constituent item of return in which it falls or is partly not disclosed, or particulars of income given in return are incorrectly stated by any machination, impact is bound to be on figure of gross total income to be mentioned under various heads of income and also on total income chargeable to tax. In fact, reducing figure of income that would be chargeable to tax would be purpose of concealment of particulars of income or giving inaccurate particulars of income. expression "particulars of income" would have relevance to all particulars of income which assessee is required to give in his return fully and truly including particulars of income chargeable to tax under various heads and total income. Therefore, any concealment or inaccuracy in particulars of income in return occurring at any stage upto and inclusive of ultimate stage of working out of total income would attract penalty provision of s. 271(1)(c) of Act. Every figure in return which is set opposite to item of income is particular of income, whether figure is one which is stated independently of anything else that appears in return or documents accompanying it or whether it is something derived from other figures elsewhere stated in such return or documents. False result may be produced by falsity of one or more of constituent items in return. words inaccurate particulars would cover falsity in final figure as also constituent elements or items. They simply would mean inaccurate in some specific or definite respect whether in constituent or subordinate items of income or end result." 16. From above it is clear that Hon ble Gujarat High Court held that particulars will be inaccurate when deductions are falsely made or where income given in return are incorrectly stated by any machination. It is to be shown by AO that assessee had shown false results and such falsity can be in any constituent items in return. In our considered view Hon ble Gujarat High Court has said that there should be something with AO which would show that what is filed by assessee was inaccurate or not correct. Merely disbelieving on claim would not be sufficient. Once it is to be held that particulars furnished by assessee are inaccurate, it would simply require AO to show as to what in fact should be accurate particulars. Thus there are two things to be compared. One what is furnished by assessee and other by AO either from assessee or from third party which he considers to be accurate. Further this inaccuracy should have material bearing on computation of income. If inaccuracy is of such nature which does not affect computation of income then that inaccuracy will not attract levy of penalty. Thus positive act on part of AO to prove that particulars furnished by assessee are inaccurate is necessary. Merely depending on rejection of claim is not sufficient for purposes of penalty. 17. Now we come to authorities referred to by learned Authorised Representative. First authority referred to is decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Curt in National Textiles vs. CIT (supra). It is held therein that mere addition made under s. 68 by not finding explanation from assessee would not justify penalty under s. 271(1)(c). This authority pertains to asst. yr. 1974-75. Expln. 1 was introduced in statute book by Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975 w.e.f. 1st April, 1976. Accordingly, this authority is not relevant in present case. Next authority referred to by learned Authorised Representative is decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Janki Ram Mills Ltd. (supra). This authority is not on concealment of income but merely refers to decision as to whether certain expenditure is of capital or revenue in nature. This decision is overruled by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Sarawana Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (2007) 211 CTR (SC) 281 : (2007) 293 ITR 201 (SC) and it does not relate to levy of penalty. It has no help to present case. Last authority referred to by learned Authorised Representative is decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Cafco Syndicate Shipping (supra). In this case finding was given by Tribunal that mere addition of income by disallowing expenses is not concealment of income. It was held that penalty cannot be imposed . For sake of convenience, we refer to headnotes from this decision as under : "The object of Explanation to statutory provision is (a) to explain meaning and intendment of Act itself, (b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in main enactment to clarify it so as to make it consistent with dominant object which it seems to sub-serve, (c) to provide additional support to dominant object of Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful, (d) Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for purpose of Explanation in order to suppress mischief and advance object of Act, it can help or assist Court in interpreting true purport or intendment of enactment, and (e) it cannot however, take away statutory right with which any person under statute has been clothed or set at naught working of Act by becoming hindrance in its interpretation. assessee, engaged in business of clearing and forwarding of import and export cargo, filed its return of income. During course of survey at business premises of assessee, it was noticed that some of vouchers o f expenses were self-vouchers and they were not supported by third party receipts, vouchers, etc. assessee filed revised return. AO held that since expenditure was not supported by proper vouchers, assessee should not have claimed expenditure for deduction, especially when amount involved was huge. Therefore, he held that assessee had concealed income and imposed penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961. On appeal CIT(A) held that AO had not proved that such expenses were not incurred by assessee. Tribunal on further appeal by Revenue held that mere addition of income by disallowing expenses would not be regarded as concealment of income and therefore levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was not justified in such cases and confirmed order passed by CIT(A). On further appeal : Held, dismissing appeal, that one and only reason for assessee to file revised return was that it was not able to produce proper vouchers for expenses incurred primary burden of proof was on Revenue. books of account revealed that expenses were incurred by assessee but only incapacity on part of assessee was that it was not able to produce proper vouchers for expenses incurred and that would not amount t o concealment of income. imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was impermissible." In our considered view facts in this case are closely similar to facts of present case. Hon ble Madras High Court held that if assessee is not able to produce proper vouchers for expenses incurred then it would not amount to concealment of income. 18. Another authority relevant for our purpose and as referred to by learned Authorised Representative is decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in Bharat Rice Mill vs. CIT (supra). In that case certain share of levy sugar was found not included in closing stock on last date of previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1981-82. When assessee was confronted with above facts , he filed revised return including value of undisclosed G rice and assessee s share of K rice. Reassessment was completed including value of aforesaid stock. AO imposed penalty. AO levied penalty which was upheld by Tribunal. It was held by Hon ble Allahabad High Court that concealment inherently carries clement of mens rea. Once explanation of assessee is bona fide and additional income has been declared by way of filing of return, then no penalty can be imposed. In this regard we refer to headnote from above decision as under : "The appellate authority has power to permit party to raise additional ground which has not been raised in memorandum of appeal and in penalty proceedings fresh material can be considered which was not available at time of assessment or while passing penalty order. However even void order or decision rendered between parties cannot be said to be non- existent in all cases and in all situations. Ordinarily, such order will, in fact, be effective inter-parties until it is successfully avoided or challenged in higher forum. Where reassessment had become final between parties unless and until it is specifically challenged in appropriate proceedings, either by way of appeal, revision or by way of writ petition under Art. 226 of Constitution of India, no advantage can be taken by assessee regarding invalidity of reassessment proceedings in collateral proceedings arising out of penalty proceedings. assessee firm filed return of income for asst. yr. 1981-82 showing income of Rs. 6,390. assessment was originally completed on 5th April, 1982, on total income of Rs. 12,390. Subsequently, while completing assessment proceedings for asst. yr. 1982-83, ITO noticed that assessee had sold 209 quintals of G rice in first week of April, 1981, whereas till date of sale, there had been no hulling of paddy, nor was there any opening stock of G rice. On being asked to explain this discrepancy, assessee submitted that it has 309 quintals of G rice as its closing stock of previous year relevant to asst yr. 1981-82 and that it was this stock which was sold in April, 1981. ITO further noticed that assessee had undertaken hulling of Government paddy during previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1981-82 and had received 433.04 quintals of K rice, as its own share out of Government rice hulling. This share of assessee was shown in levy register of relevant previous year, but was not included in closing stock on last date of previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1981-82. When assessee was confronted with aforesaid facts, assessee filed revised return of income for asst. yr. 1981-82 including value of undisclosed G rice and assessee s share of K rice received on account of Government hulling. Reassessment was completed including value of aforesaid stock at Rs. 37,548. While completing reassessment, ITO issued penalty notice to assessee in terms of s. 271(1)(c). It was explained on behalf of assessee before ITO that "non-disclosure of closing stock of G rice was not intentional and it was only mistake by accountant not to have included it in closing stock". Similarly regarding non-disclosure of assessee s share of rice in customs hulling, it was stated that assessee was under impression "that it can include its share only when it was sold". ITO did not accept explanation and imposed penalty. CIT(A) confirmed it. On further appeal to Tribunal assessee raised additional ground that reassessment was void ab initio. Tribunal admitted additional ground but held that reassessment is valid. It also upheld order of penalty. On reference : Held, (i) That reassessment order having not been challenged in appeal or any other proceeding, it could not be said to be void order in collateral proceeding. (ii) That word "concealment" inherently carries with it element of mens rea. explanation offered by assessee in present case was bona fide and also stood substantiated specially when closing stocks of G r i c e and K rice though not disclosed in previous year relevant to assessment year in question had been voluntarily disclosed in revised return filed by assessee and which stocks had been bona fide disclosed by assessed to subsequent assessment year, i.e., 1982-83, and had also been subjected to tax in that year apart from being subjected to tax in asst. yr. 1981-82 by reassessment order. Penalty could therefore not be imposed." It is thus clear that no penalty for concealment of income can be levied by merely disbelieving explanation by assessee. There has to be some positive material collected and referred by AO which would show that either assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. There has to be something for comparison to prove that what was claimed by assessee was false or inaccurate. Mere disbelieving on claim made by assessee is not sufficient. AO could have in present case enquired and shown that addresses of artisans are not correct or they have not received payment or that they have denied to have rendered any services or money on bearer cheques have not gone to artisans/mechanics or has been received back by assessee or things similar to this highlighting inaccuracy in story or explanation furnished by assessee. In absence of such finding and material relating to these, it is not possible to hold that assessee had concealed particulars of his income by way of claiming expenses on commission or has filed inaccurate particulars relating thereto. As result, penalty so confirmed by learned CIT(A) cannot be upheld. It is accordingly cancelled. 19. In result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. *** STAR INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX