JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by R. Sudhakar J.-This tax case (appeal), filed by assessee as against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, was admitted by this court on following substantial question of law: "Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that provisions of clause (B) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1) are attracted thereby reversing order of first appellate authority cancelling penalty?" brief facts are as follows: appellant-assessee is individual carrying on business in cloth and readymade garments as proprietary concern. assessee filed his return of income for assessment year 1995-96 declaring income at Rs. 3,61,060. On perusal of statements filed by assessee, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee received NRE gifts to extent of Rs. 7.25 lakhs from various parties. Since assessee is not able to prove genuineness of NRE gifts received to satisfaction of Department, proceedings were initiated under section 147 of Incometax Act by issuing notice under section 148 of Income-tax Act. In response to said notice, assessee filed return of income admitting same income as was filed originally. Subsequently, he filed revised income showing total income of Rs. 10,86,060, which includes NRE gifts received by assessee. assessee also furnished details of persons from whom he received said NRE gifts. Since assessee concealed income in original return filed, Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act by issuing notice to assessee. In response to said notice, assessee, in order to buy peace, offered whole amount of gifts as income. Since assessee is not able to prove genuineness of NRE gifts, assessee agreed to offer said amount as income for assessment year 1995-96. Hence, Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of Income-tax Act accepting income disclosed in return filed subsequently and levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act. Aggrieved by said penalty proceedings, assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed appeal, thereby cancelled penalty proceedings holding that Assessing Officer because of surrender made by assessee in course of survey, did not consider it necessary to make further enquiry to establish that gifts claimed were not genuine or false to establish fact that assessee had actually concealed facts/or particulars of its income or that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. As against said order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Revenue preferred appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal, following decision in case of K. P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT reported in [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC), allowed appeal filed by Revenue restoring penalty proceedings initiated by Assessing Officer holding that when assessee had admitted income only after being questioned during course of survey, onus is on assessee to establish that assessee had not concealed any income. Aggrieved by said order of Tribunal, assessee is before this court raising abovementioned substantial question of law. Learned counsel appearing for assessee pointed out that when assessee had voluntarily offered income, in absence of any wilfulness in not disclosing same, question of levy of penalty did not arise. He pointed out that there was no concealment as such, as had been viewed by assessing authority and as confirmed by Tribunal. Heard learned counsel appearing for assessee and learned standing counsel appearing for Revenue and perused materials placed before this court. It is seen from order of Assessing Officer that after survey being conducted in premises of assessee, assessee offered NRE gifts as income and filed revised return. Hence, Assessing Officer initiated as income and filed revised return. Hence, Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings. perusal of order of Tribunal reveals that assessee himself had admitted that it would be very difficult and tough task for him to prove genuineness of gifts. assessee had agreed to offer said NRE gifts as income only after survey being conducted in premises of assessee. But for survey, assessee would not have offered said NRE gifts as income. Hence, onus is on assessee to substantiate said NRE gifts. When assessee is not able to prove genuineness of NRE gifts, Tribunal is justified in confirming order of Assessing Officer. This court had occasion to consider issue on levy of penalty in decisions reported in M. S. Mohammed Marzook (Late) v. ITO [2006] 283 ITR 254 (Mad); M. Shahul Hameed Batcha v. ITO [2007] 292 ITR 585 (Mad) and M. Sajjanraj Nahar v. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 230 (Mad), wherein, this court had elaborately considered case law on subject and pointed out to decision of Supreme Court in case of K. P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT reported in [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC), rendered after introduction of Explanation to section 271(1) of Income-tax Act. This court held that when concealment of income was with reference to original return and there was no explanation at all as regards nondisclosure, mere claim that income was offered in revised return, as matter of purchasing peace, by itself, would not exonerate assessee from culpability. Having regard to fact that assessee had not disclosed any reason for omission in original return and that revised return was filed only after search, this court held that penalty was leviable. facts herein are no different from abovesaid decisions. As seen from narration in order of Tribunal as well as that of other authorities, assessee filed revised return only after survey operation in business premises of assessee. conduct of assessee, hence, assumes significance in coming forward to disclose income. When there is no satisfactory explanation as regards its non-disclosure of income in original return and that undisclosed income came to be shown only in revised return, rightly Tribunal applied law as declared by apex court and by this court. In circumstances, we do not find any justification to cancel penalty levied by Assessing Officer, which is admittedly minimum penalty. Accordingly, appeal fails and same is dismissed. No costs. *** R. Padmanabhan v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax