JUDGMENT substantial question of law under adjudication in this appeal is that: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income- tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming penalty imposed upon appellant-assessee under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961, when claim of assessee was debatable one and there was no specific finding that assessee had submitted false or incorrect accounts?" In brief, facts of case are that appellant-assessee filed its return of income on February 15, 1996, declaring total income of Rs. 7,490. assessee sold one dal mill in year previous to assessment year for consideration of Rs. 19,14,000. assessee, however, did not declare any profit/short-term capital gains on sale of dal mill by treating that as long- term capital gains. As per record, written down value (WDV) of dal mill as on April 1, 1994, was Rs. 9,57,482. assessee claimed depreciation on dal mill during assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88, same being depreciable asset. As already stated, sale consideration for dal mill was Rs. 19,14,000 and written down value of that as on April 1, 1994, was Rs. 9,57,482. assessee, as such, gained Rs. 9,56,518 but that was not declared in return of income filed. action under section 147 read with section 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961, thus, was initiated and Assessing Officer made certain additions. additions so made came to be affirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax and also by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. notice as per section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of Act of 1961 was issued and assessee in response thereto stated that it being cooperative society is under control of Government of Rajasthan and, therefore, dall mill was sold with prior approval and sanction of competent authority. As per assessee, in return of income it disclosed transaction regarding sale of dal mill and also relating to sale of mill in computation of income filed with return of income. There was no concealment of particulars of income or submission of inaccurate particulars of income and additions were made only on basis of difference of opinion. Assessing Officer did not accept explanation and held that assessee concealed its income from capital gains and also furnished inaccurate particulars of income that attracts provisions of section 271(1)(c) of Act of 1961, therefore, levied penalty at 150 per cent. of on total income concealed. appeal giving challenge to order passed by Assessing Officer came to be dismissed, vide order dated October 7, 2010. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), while affirming order passed by Assessing Officer, observed that appellant failed to produce material evidence to substantiate its explanation that claim made in return of income was bona fide one. learned Commissioner of Incometax accepted finding given by Assessing Officer that instant one was not case of difference of opinion but relating to concealment of income and submission of inaccurate particulars of income. appeal preferred by assessee before learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also came to be dismissed by order dated September 14, 2012, with finding that dal mill sold was part of block of assets and assessee claimed depreciation thereon from beginning till year 1987 and fact that assessee is co-operative society is not sufficient to absolve it from penal provisions as per section 271(1)(a), (c) of Act of 1961. assessee after disposal of appeal preferred application seeking certain modifications in order passed by Tribunal and application aforesaid came to be dismissed on April 30, 2013, however, by another order dated July 31, 2013, penalty of 150 per cent. was substituted by 100 per cent. Being aggrieved by order passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated September 14, 2012, and July 31, 2013, instant appeal is preferred. argument advanced by learned counsel for appellant is that as per section 271(1)(c) of Act of 1961 penalty could have been imposed only on satisfying that assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In case in hand, there is no concealment or submission of inaccurate particulars of income. It is pointed out that assessee while submitting return disclosed all necessary facts about sale of dal mill including details pertaining to depreciation claimed with assertion that dal mill being depreciable asset, assessee claimed depreciation for years 1985-86 to 1987- 88. facts furnished by assessee were available on record and if Assessing Officer was having any difference of opinion, he would have made necessary additions but could not have imposed any penalty as nothing was concealed in returns furnished. Learned counsel for Revenue on other hand submits that assessee failed to satisfy basis on which he claimed depreciation, therefore, penalty was rightly imposed. Heard learned counsels. Section 271(1)(c) of Act of 1961 provides that if Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals) or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in course of any proceedings under Income-tax Act, 1961, is satisfied that any person has concealed particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, shall be liable to pay penalty. prime factors required to be considered while imposing penalty as per section 271(1)(c) of Act of 1961 are concealment of particulars of income or submission of inaccurate particulars of such income. In case in hand, it is not in dispute that assessee disclosed all details about its income including fact about sale of dal mill with consideration of Rs. 19,14,000. depreciation was claimed by it by treating same as depreciable asset. written down value too was referred but error crept in treating transaction as long-term capital gains. assessee committed error in present set of facts and that cannot be treated as concealment of particulars of its income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. error could have been rectified by Assessing Officer by making necessary additions and for that assessee is under obligation to pay tax but penalty could have not been imposed as per section 271(1)(a), (c) of Act without satisfying concealment or submission of inaccurate particulars of income on part of assessee. Such satisfaction must reflect in order of assessment as penalty as per provision under consideration is not automatic. Such penalty must not be imposed ipse dixit. We are of considered opinion that in case in hand powers under section 271(1)(a),(c) of Act of 1961 were erroneously exercised. In result, appeal succeeds with answer to substantial question in terms that Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in confirming penalty imposed on appellant-assessee under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961, when claim of assessee was debatable one and there was no specific finding that assessee had submitted false or incorrect accounts. Consequent to finding aforesaid order passed by Assessing Officer dated July 16, 2007, order dated October 7, 2010, passed by Commissioner of Income-tax, Bikaner, and order passed by Tribunal dated September 14, 2012, are quashed to extent of imposing penalty as per section 271(1)(c) of Act of 1961. *** Anoopgarh Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax