Judgment :- RAMAPRASADA RAO J. These two tax cases are more or less connected, in the sense that Tax Case No. 346 of 1970 relates to the assessment year 1958-59 and Tax Case No. 348 of 1970 relates to the assessment year 1959-60. In each of these cases, a similar question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the question is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty for each of the assessment years in both the tax cases is justified in law. The assessee is a firm of jewellers We shall now take up T.C. No. 346 of 1970. The Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal found that there was a concealment and a non-disclosure of assessable income by the assessee. The Tribunal in its final order of assessment observed that the two additions made were reasonable and were warranted in the circumstances. According to it, the explanation given by the assessee that it secured the funds for the purpose of purchasing gold from its branch office was not worthy of credence. It not merely not accepted the bare explanation furnished by the assessee, but on a further probe found that it was impossible for the principal office to have availed itself of all the available cash at its branches so as to make the alleged purchases for which the principal office did not have the necessary funds. Having thus negatived the bare explanation of the assessee and having applied its mind to the entry in the books of account and bearing in mind the surrounding circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee was having some secret funds which it was retaining. It was in those circumstances that the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal estimated the income to be added at Rs. 50, 000 for one activity of the assessee and another sum of Rs. 10, 000 for a different activity of his which also suffers from the same infirmity as above. As regards the second addition of Rs. 10, 000, the explanation of the assessee was that one of partner's relatives provided the said fund and that was utilised by it in the course of its business. 10, 000 for a different activity of his which also suffers from the same infirmity as above. As regards the second addition of Rs. 10, 000, the explanation of the assessee was that one of partner's relatives provided the said fund and that was utilised by it in the course of its business. The evidence produced by the assessee supporting its theory that it secured a sum of Rs.10, 000 from one V.S.E. Mohamed Mohideen of Kayalpattinam was an affidavit sworn to by Mohamed Mohideen. Even the Income-tax Officer wanted the assessee to produce this person for cross-examination, but he was not produced due to alleged ill health. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also no attempt was made to substantiate the recitals in the affidavit. It was in those circumstances that the Appellate Tribunal accepted the addition of Rs. 10, 000 as well. The additions having thus been made, proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to levy penalty on the assessee for such escapements and unaccounting of assessable income. The assessee reiterated the contentions already made during the assessment proceedings. The assessee's explanation before the Tribunal was that the purchases of stock made by it were credit purchases and that, therefore, there was no justification for the addition of Rs. 50, 000. Regarding the other sum of Rs. 10, 000 which is added, the same plea which was urged by the assessee before the assessing officer was repeated. The Tribunal, however, did not countenance such reiteration of the submissions already made and upheld the penalty levied by the authorities consequent upon the discovery of the non-inclusion of assessable income such as the sum of Rs. 50, 000 and another sum of Rs. 10, 000 already referred to. It observed that there was concealment of income which necessitated the addition and in its consequence it attracted the penalty as well, in law. The Tribunal would not agree with the explanation given by the assessee that in the matter of procurement of the cash for the purpose of purchase of stock or with the story that the sum of Rs. 10, 000 was made available by Mohamed Mohideen. In the result, therefore, the Tribunal sustained the levy of the penalty but reduced it to a sum of Rs. 25, 000 having regard to certain deletions made by it in the assessment order. 10, 000 was made available by Mohamed Mohideen. In the result, therefore, the Tribunal sustained the levy of the penalty but reduced it to a sum of Rs. 25, 000 having regard to certain deletions made by it in the assessment order. At the request of the assessee, the question mentioned above was referred to usMr. Kareem, learned counsel for the assessee, says that the record does not disclose a finding to the effect that the assessee concealed or deliberately concealed income, nor could it be reasonably inferred from the discussion in the orders of the Tribunals below that they applied their mind independently about any overtness in the avoidance of tax. Reliance is placed upon State of Orissa v. Maharaja Shri B. P. Singh Deo in which the Supreme Court laid down or reiterated the well-known principle that mere rejection of the explanation by an assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings of the revenue would not automatically lead to the exercise of power to levy penalty. On the other hand, counsel for the revenue would say that even at the original stage the conduct of the assessee was discussed and additions were made only because of an attempt to consciously conceal assessable income on the part of the assessee. Another contention is that as the Tribunal rested its conclusion on appreciation of facts, no interference is called for by this court exercising jurisdiction under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, equal to 256(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, which is in the nature of advisory jurisdiction It is by now well settled that the scope of interference by the High Court on a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is rather restricted. It is undoubtedly advisory in the sense that it is not appellate. It is not even revisional as it is understood in civil law because interference on the ground that there is a material irregularity in the order of the Tribunal is also sometimes not possible. One thing, however, is certain that conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal based on assessment of the material on record have to be accepted by this court and the scope of interference in such matters is very much limited. One thing, however, is certain that conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal based on assessment of the material on record have to be accepted by this court and the scope of interference in such matters is very much limited. In cases where such conclusions or decisions are based on no evidence or on materials which were not correctly or truly appreciated or in cases where the conclusions are such which a reasonable person would not have made on the hypothesis presented, then in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction, the High Court could interfere, but even then for certain limited purposes. No such case has been made out by the assessee in the instant caseNext we come to the periphery of power in penalty proceedings. The penalty proceedings in the tax law, though not equatable to a penal proceeding in toto, are certainly in the exercise of quasi-penal power. If the proceeding is, therefore, quasi-penal, then the question which looms large in such cases is on whom the burden of proof lies to bring home the offence so as to attract the penalty. All acts of concealment and such other equatable actions on the part of the assessee do not come for criticism and for the exercise of such a penal power. It is only contumacious conduct which is the resultant of a conscious and deliberate attempt to avoid assessable income which comes into computation for the purpose of exercise of such a power to levy a penalty. Such power is generally exercised in the course of the assessment proceedings. But the only conceivable distinction is that penalty proceedings begin when the assessment proceedings end. It is always, however, accepted that penalty proceedings are in the stream of assessment activities of the revenue and, therefore, the burden of proof has always been accepted to be on the shoulders of the revenue to establish even during the initial assessment proceedings that the case was one where the assessee should be brought to book by further extending the assessment proceedings and leading it on to penalty proceedings. It is in this sense that the burden is cast on the revenue to establish prima facie that there has been a conscious concealment and a deliberate avoidance resulting in a contumacious activity by the assessee in the course of the proceeding. It is in this sense that the burden is cast on the revenue to establish prima facie that there has been a conscious concealment and a deliberate avoidance resulting in a contumacious activity by the assessee in the course of the proceeding. If on the record we have that much of material to prove such wantonness on the part of the assessee to avoid tax and thus evade tax, then the assessing officers in the first instance would be justified in giving the clue for the exercise of the penal power at a later stage by pointing out in their respective orders that there has been such a supine indifference on the part of the assessee to avoid taxIt is, therefore, necessary for us to see in the instant case whether in the stream of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer did make. the position clear even at that stage that this is a case in which the assessment proceedings should not end as such, but the penalty proceedings should begin as soon as the former ends. We have no hesitation in holding that in the instant case there is sufficient material for us to conclude that there are findings of conscious concealment and deliberate avoidance of assessable income by the assessee In two cases the avoidance was discovered. The sum of Rs. 50, 000 is the first item concealed. The Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and finally the Tribunal found that the story of the assessee that it brought out this sum from its branch was unbelievable. If the Tribunal had said that and left it at that, probably Mr. Kareem would be right in his contention that the mere rejection, of the explanation of the assessee cannot be the foundation for initiating penalty proceedings or leaving it. But the case did not end there. The revenue at every stage found that the story was not only wrong but was unacceptable. It appears to us also to be so. It is not conceivable for a branch office of the assessee's business to keep cash under independent accounts of its own but would not make a debit entry as against it if it was taken away by the principal business for its purpose. It appears to us also to be so. It is not conceivable for a branch office of the assessee's business to keep cash under independent accounts of its own but would not make a debit entry as against it if it was taken away by the principal business for its purpose. Unless there is such a debit entry, the mere ipse dixit of the principal whenever it is convenient for it to do so that it utilised the cash credit in the branch office was rightly rejected by the revenue and the Tribunal as an unacceptable story and an impossible commercial activity As regards the addition of Rs. 10, 000 for which the penalty was attracted, the case is that the assessee should have been given on opportunity to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavit, Mohamed Mohideen. The contention also is that the department should have summoned him. Though in penalty proceedings the burden is on the revenue to establish the penal activity of the assessee and bring it home before the concerned statutory authorities, yet such burden is not to be understood in a liberal way so as to compel the department to summon the witness when the assessee should have summoned him to further its contentions. The assessee's case was that the deponent of the affidavit, Mohamed Mohideen, provided Rs. 10, 000. It was primarily its responsibility to establish the said contention by producing the deponent of the affidavit. No doubt it is pleaded that he was ill for some time but that did not prevent the assessee from making a request at least before the Appellate Tribunal that it might be given an opportunity to produce the deponent before the Tribunal or ask for such other similar relief. No such attempt has been made. Reliance is placed upon Mehta Parikh and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax That was a case where the persons who gave the affidavits were not cross-examined and there is no indication in the judgment to show that the department wanted the deponents to be cross-examined. Having regard to the finding of fact in the assessment proceedings and the nature of the concealment which is the basis for the levy of penalty, we are unable to agree with Mr. Kareem that there was no justification for the levy of penalty as made by the revenue and accepted by the Tribunal. Having regard to the finding of fact in the assessment proceedings and the nature of the concealment which is the basis for the levy of penalty, we are unable to agree with Mr. Kareem that there was no justification for the levy of penalty as made by the revenue and accepted by the Tribunal. The reference is, therefore, answered against the assessee and the revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250T.C. No. 348 of 1970 relates to the assessment year 1959-60. Though four items of credit in the books of the assessee were involved we are now concerned with only two sums which were added on to the assessable income. The first one is the sum of Rs. 5, 750 which was a credit in the name of A. K. Kadar Ali and another sum of Rs. 11, 512.63 which related to the purchase of gold out of cash not accounted for. As regards the sum of Rs. 5, 750 the Tribunal considered the order of the Income-tax Officer and found that the entries in the books of account of the assessee did not support the explanation given that a draft was brought by A. K. Kadar Ali of Ceylon and it was in that connection the credit was made. No particulars were given as to how the so-called draft was cashed and the source from which it was received, etc. No other evidence or particulars were furnished by the assessee even during the penalty proceedings which we shall refer to hereafter. It was in these circumstances that the credit was held to be fictitious one. The other amount of Rs. 11, 512.63, which was the amount the Tribunal added as against the sum of Rs. 59, 000 added by the Income-tax Officer, represented, according to the Tribunal, cash outside the books, utilised for the purchase of gold. Factually, it is found that the assessee was unable to explain this credit in any reasonable manner. Consequent upon such an addition and in view of the penalty proceedings taken later, the Tribunal confirmed the order of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). Factually, it is found that the assessee was unable to explain this credit in any reasonable manner. Consequent upon such an addition and in view of the penalty proceedings taken later, the Tribunal confirmed the order of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). On a request made by the assessee the question already excerpted above was referred for our decision We have already touched upon the essential features which would guide this court in exercising jurisdiction under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as also the scope of the penalty proceedings. Having regard to the fact that the findings of fact rendered by the Tribunal are based on acceptable material and as it is generally not possible for this court in exercise of its advisory jurisdiction to probe further into such factual findings, we are unable to interfere with the conclusions made. But what is urged by Mr. Kareem is that the observation of the Tribunal that no submissions were made in regard to the other items taken by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of levying the penalty is clearly not correct. If really there was any such patent error in the order, as rightly suggested by the counsel for the revenue, the assessee would have sought for rectification of the alleged error. No such attempt has been made. We have, therefore, to take it that no such submission was made in regard to the other item. In view of our conclusion that the levy of the penalty is justified in law having regard to the facts of this case, the question is answered against the assessee, but as these cases were both taken up together, there will be no costs in this reference.