Per G.C. Gupta, Judicial Member: This appeal by assessee for assessment year 1992-93 is directed against order of CIT(A). only issue is regarding penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that all material facts relevant for assessment in this case were filed before Assessing Officer and therefore, no case of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act is made out by Department. Ld. DR has opposed submission of Learned Counsel for assessee. He has relied on order of Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and submitted that search action was carried out and unaccounted jewellery and silver articles were seized and assessee has offered additional income for relevant year. 2. We have considered rival submissions and have perused order of Assessing Officer and CIT(A). We find that search action was carried out at residence of assessee on 3-3-1992 and certain items of jewellery, silver articles were seized and investment in electronic items of Rs. 1.2 lakhs were also found. assessee in his statement made under section 132(4) of Act at time of search itself, offered total amount of jewellery, silver articles and electronic items amounting to Rs. 21,64,800 as additional income for year under consideration and stated that above investment has been made by him from income earned in current accounting year from gambling. Regarding payment of tax due on this additional income, assessee requested concerned CIT to auction ornaments seized from him and adjust proceeds thereof against tax due from him and despite such letters Assessing Officer failed to make payment of tax. assessee has filed return of income under section 139(1) and has disclosed manner in which undisclosed income was earned, which could not be controverted by revenue. assessee has requested concerned CIT for auction of seized jewellery and this could legally be construed as payment of tax. CIT(A) has rejected claim of assessee regarding payment of tax by requesting CIT to auction seized ornaments by observing that request letter was made by Chartered Accountant of assessee, who was representing assessee in income-tax proceedings and such request letter cannot be treated as valid request unless it is accompanied by authorization specifically permitting Chartered Accountant to take any action with regard to assets of appellant. In these facts of case, CIT(A) has confirmed penalty by observing that such invalid request cannot be construed as constructive payment of taxes. We find that this approach of CIT(A) is not sustainable. In case, Assessing Officer did not accept such request letter signed by Chartered Accountant of assessee, he should have called assessee to file request letter to auction seized ornaments under signature of assessee himself. fact that assessee did not have liquid assets and therefore, he has requested for auction of seized jewellery, is not disputed by revenue. In these facts of case, we hold that conditions of provision of Explanation 5 of section 271(1)(c) of Act are satisfied in this case. very basis of imposition of penalty is amount offered by assessee as additional income for year under consideration by assessee itself. In these facts of case, we hold that no case of imposition of penalty for concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of Act is made out by Department and accordingly penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is cancelled and grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed. 3. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. *** VINOD K. BHAGAT v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX