ARIJIT PASAYAT ( 1 ) PURSUANT to the direction given by this court in an application under Section 256 (2) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ), Income-tax appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-D ( tribunal in short) has referred the following question for opinion of this court : "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal acted on material in coming to the conclusion that penalty was imposable on the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72 ?"as the question itself indicates, dispute relates to assessment year 1971-72. ( 2 ) FACTUAL position, as noted in the statement of case, is as follows: ASSESSEE, a partnership firm, consisted of four partners with 25% share each. Its business was of selling steel pipes and tubes etc. with its head office at Delhi and branch at Calcutta. For the assessment year in question previous year ended on Diwali, 1970. Assessee had filed its return on 20th July, 1971 declaring an income of Rs. 4,64,890. 00. Assessment was completed on,a total income of. Rs. 7,50,682. 00. Assessee preferred appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ( aac in short ). Said authority granted partial relief to the assessee and total income was reduced to Rs. 6,05,877. 00. Before completion of assessment. Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act and referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant commissioner ( iac in short) under Section 274 (2) of the Act, as the amount in respect of which income had been concealed or inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished exceeded Rs. 25,000. 00. IAC, after issuing show cause notice to the assessee and after considering assessee"s objections in the show cause reply and written submissions filed from time to time held that assessee had concealed its income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of claim of interest amounting to Rs. 61,181. 00. Accordingly it was held that penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) was leviable. IAC took note of the fact that the main addition made in the assessment order was disallowance of Rs. 61,181. 00 representing interest on alleged loans from agriculturists, which the assessee had also accepted. Making a reference to the assessment order made for the assessment year 1956-57, it was held that assessee was guilty of concealment of income. IAC took note of the fact that the main addition made in the assessment order was disallowance of Rs. 61,181. 00 representing interest on alleged loans from agriculturists, which the assessee had also accepted. Making a reference to the assessment order made for the assessment year 1956-57, it was held that assessee was guilty of concealment of income. The acceptability of alleged loans from agriculturists was dealt with in the assessment orders for several years i. e. 1956-57 onwards. Therefore, minimum penalty of rs. 61,181. 00 was levied. Matter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal. Four appeals were dealt with by the Tribunal together. Three of them relate to the assessments made for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70 while fourth one related to the case at hand. Tribunal noticed that after it was brought to assessee s notice that so-called loans were not genuine, assessee surrendered, after being cornered. Not only that, assessee had introduced the amounts in question in its books accepting it to be belonging to the firm or its partners. That being the position, there being no scope for claiming interest on the so-called loans and rightly, therefore, it has been held that there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income. Accordingly, levy of penalty was upheld. Prayer was made for reference under Section 256 (1) of the Act which was rejected. However, on being moved, as noted above, direction was given by this Court for referring the question as set out above for opinion of this Court. ( 3 ) WE have heard learned counsel for Revenue. There is no appearance for assessee in spite of notice. Learned counsel for Revenue submitted that after analysing the factual position in detail, Tribunal has concluded that penalty was clearly leviable. That being the position no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. ( 4 ) A few facts need to be noted to deal with the question referred. As has been indicated by the tribunal, loans to the tune of over Rs. 1 Crore were claimed to have been taken from different persons. A device of introducing them in the form of deposits from hundiwalas and agriculturists was adopted and some confirmatory letters were obtained. As has been indicated by the tribunal, loans to the tune of over Rs. 1 Crore were claimed to have been taken from different persons. A device of introducing them in the form of deposits from hundiwalas and agriculturists was adopted and some confirmatory letters were obtained. The so called creditors did not come forward to claim those amounts and ultimately assessee introduced the amounts in its books as belonging to it or its partners. Tribunal found it interesting that people who had advanced such large deposits remained silent, did not come forward to claim the amounts and ultimately allowed the assessee to become owner of the amounts. A petition for settlement was filed by the assessee after proceedings for the assessment year 1957-58 were initiated for re-assessment. A sum of Rs. 1,82,500. 00 towards fictitious hundi loans was added in the income of the assessee. Investigations for the subsequent years were also going on and assessments already completed had been re-opened. Tribunal in fact. noticed that return for the assessment year in question was filed on 20/07/1971 while surrender had already been made in respect of assessment year 1959-60 to 1966-67. In view of the aforesaid factual position. Tribunal concluded that there was concealment of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so far as claim of interest is concerned. As the factual position goes to show, the amounts had been accepted to be belonging to the assessee and/or its partners and that is why these amounts were later on introduced in the books as belonging to the assessee or its partners. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, conclusions of the Tribunal are essentially factual giving rise to no question of law. we decline to answer the question referred. The reference is accordingly returned un-answered.