Judgment M.C. Jain, J.-This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Thefacts in brief are that the assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on business of kirana. The previous year relevant to the assessment year ended on October 21, 1968. The assessee declared a gross profit of Rs. 17,414 giving a gross profit rate of 2.5 per cent on the retail sales of kirana goods totalling Rs. 7,34,267. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that looking to the nature of the business, the gross profit was very low and he observed that as accounts are not supported by stock tally, the account version cannot be relied upon. He made a lump sum addition of Rs. 12,000 in the trading account, which brought the gross profit rate to 4% as was in the past. The Income-tax Officer at the time of completing the assessment was also of the view that there was concealment of income by the assessee. As such, he initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). 3. In response to the notice in penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted that the addition was on account of application of higher rate of profit and the assessee had not concealed the particulars of income. The Income-tax Officer, by his order dated October 10, 1973, imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000. He considered the matter as under: “But the records show that when the statement of affairs of the asses- see was called for by the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he found a net accretion of Rs. 13,326 to the wealth of the assessee, against trading addition of Rs. 12,000. This was brought to the notice of the assessee, vide letter No. 2103 dated July 3, 1973. The assessee could not give any explanation with regard to this accretion to his wealth. In the circumstances as described above, it is amply clear that the assessee fraudulently furnished the particulars of his income which he did by showing smaller rate of profit. The finding of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner as to the accretion to wealth remains unchallenged. It is also not the case of the assessee that the accretion was on account of any other income which is not liable for tax. The finding of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner as to the accretion to wealth remains unchallenged. It is also not the case of the assessee that the accretion was on account of any other income which is not liable for tax. No other source of income excepting the business has been admitted by the assessee. Therefore, any accretion to his wealth has to be necessarily the result of his good profits from the business, which he has not fully disclosed to the Department. 4. The assessee went in appeal against the order levying penalty and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, B-Range, Jaipur, by his order dated October 1. 1974 (annexure C), dismissed the appeal. These contentions of the assessee were negatived by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner: that the difference in the income returned and the income assessed is not necessarily the concealed income and that the Income-tax Officer’s observation in the order that the assessee could not give any explanation with regard to the accretion to his wealth, is not correct. The Income-tax Officer’s letter dated July 3, 1973, was replied by the authorised representative of the assessee, vide letter dated July 13, 1973. It was also contended that the absence of reply to the Income-tax Officer’s query, cannot be interpreted as proof of concealment and no penalty can be levied on that basis. 5. The learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner dealt with the matter as under: “The Income-tax Officer has treated the appellant as a defaulter under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act on the ground that at the appeal stage, it was found that the assessee had net accretion of Rs. 13,326 to his wealth. Although the appellant has not drawn regular balance-sheet as such, he had filed at the appeal stage (in Appeals Nos. 160 of 197 1-72 and 202 and 227 of 197 1-72 dated October 13, 1972), statement of assets and liabilities for the assessment year 1969-70 and also for earlier years. On the basis of these statements, it was found that the appellant had net accretion to his capital to the extent of Rs. 13,326. It was on the basis of this finding that the trading additions of Rs. 12,000 were confirmed in appeal. On the basis of these statements, it was found that the appellant had net accretion to his capital to the extent of Rs. 13,326. It was on the basis of this finding that the trading additions of Rs. 12,000 were confirmed in appeal. It would appear from the above that the penalty levied by the Income-tax Officer is not merely on the basis of trading additions but on the basis of actual accretion to his capital. The appellant’s case is thus not within the scope of the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in M/s.. Nassiruddin Brothers, Bhilwara, referred to above. Concealment has been established at least to the extent of Rs. 12,000 and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer was justified in levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax Act. The penalty levied by the income-tax Officer is Rs. 15,000 against the actual concealment of Rs. 12,000. The appellant has not been able to establish in the course of penalty proceedings either before the Income-tax Officer or in the course of the present appeal, that the calculations regarding capital accretions as made in the appeal order referred to above, were incorrect in any way. Since it is established that the concealment of income had occurred in this, mens rea on the part of the appellant is naturally established.” 6. Further appeal was taken by the assessee against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated November 13, 1975 (annexure D), allowed the appeal and cancelled the order imposing the penalty. The Tribunal after considering the facts of the case and after considering the contentions of the assessee and relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77, considered the case as under. The learned Income-tax Officer at the time of initiating penalty proceedings was of the view that there was concealment of income by the assessee and an ad hoc addition of Rs. 12,000 was made in the trading account. At that time, the learned Income-tax Officer never applied his mind that there was capital accretion and as a result of it there was concealment of income to the extent of Rs. 12,000. 12,000 was made in the trading account. At that time, the learned Income-tax Officer never applied his mind that there was capital accretion and as a result of it there was concealment of income to the extent of Rs. 12,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the first time in quantum appeal also supported the addition in trading account on the ground that there was capital accretion of Rs. 13,326. The learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after so holding, was of the view that from this point of view also, the trading addition was fully justified. If the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that there was concealment of income as a result of accretion to the capital, he could have initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271 of the Act. The learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner never initiated penalty proceedings for such capital accretion. Under these circumstances, the learned Income-tax Officer in penalty proceedings cannot impose penalty on the ground that there was capital accretion in the year of account.” 7. With regard to the explanation relating to capital accretion, the Tribunal recorded that both the parties were directed to produce the copies of the letter and of the reply but they failed to produce. So, the Tribunal observed that it is left with the material which is available on record and observed that in the absence of the letter dated July 3, 1973, and reply dated July 13, 1973, it would be difficult to come to the conclusion whether before the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee gave no explanation regarding the capital accretion. The Tribunal, then, proceeded to consider the questions as under: The assessee maintained books of account and on the basis of those books, the assessee disclosed the profits in question. The authorities below nowhere pointed out which of the particular items in the books disclosed by the assessee are false or unreliable. The learned Income-tax Officer made an ad hoc addition of Rs. 12,000. The assessee also took a constant plea that there was no concealment of income by the assessee. Even in the past, such additions were made on the basis of an estimate by applying a higher gross profit rate. The learned Income-tax Officer made an ad hoc addition of Rs. 12,000. The assessee also took a constant plea that there was no concealment of income by the assessee. Even in the past, such additions were made on the basis of an estimate by applying a higher gross profit rate. We may also point out if in the opinion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, there was accretion in the capital, the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner could have enhanced the addition in accordance with law. But the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner never enhanced the addition. On the other hand, the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner only confirmed the trading addition on a different ground. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and probabilities of the cases, in our opinion, there were preponderance of probabilities, which go to show that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee in not returning the assessed income. On the basis of the material on record, it could hardly be said that there was concealment of income by the assessee.” 8. The reference application made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 256(1) was rejected by the Tribunal, vide its order dated April 24, 1976, but this Court on application under Section 256(2) framed the following questions of law and directed the Tribunal to send the statement of the case and refer the questions for the opinion of this Court: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer, while imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not entitled to take into consideration the additional fact noticed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the quantum appeal that there was unexplained net accretion to the assessee’s capital amounting to Rs. 13,326? 2. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that there was preponderance of probabilities, which go to show that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee in not returning the correct income stands vitiated as the same is based on no evidence? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee and in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c)? 9. We have heard Mr. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee and in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c)? 9. We have heard Mr. Chand Raj Mehta, learned advocate for the Revenue, and Mr. Rajesh Balia, learned Counsel for the assessee. 10. For the proper adjudication of controversies in question and for facility of reference, we may first take notice of the relevant provisions of Section 271 of the Act. The relevant provisions are Section 271(1)(c) and the Explanation appended to Sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act: “271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.--(1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (c) hasconcealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, Explanation.--Where the total income returned by any person is less than eighty per cent. of the total income (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as the correct income) as assessed under Section 143 or Section 144 or Section 147 (reduced by the expenditure incurred bona fide by him for the purpose of making or earning any income included in the total income but which has been disallowed as a deduction), such person shall, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the purposes of Clause (c) of this sub-section.” 11. A perusal of the above provision would show that the proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be initiated either by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner when he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings under the Act that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is only on such satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner arrived at in the course of proceedings before them, the provision can be resorted to. It is only on such satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner arrived at in the course of proceedings before them, the provision can be resorted to. The Explanation to subsection (1) of Section 271 of the Act introduces a deeming provision. If the total income returned by the assessee is less than 80% of the total income assessed, it shall be deemed that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the purposes of Clause (c) but the concealment is not so deemed if the assessee proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part. If the assessee proves that there was no fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part in returning the correct income, then in that situation, no presumption of concealment would arise. Presumption or fiction of concealment would arise only in the situation when he fails to prove that there was no fraud or any gross or any wilful neglect in returning the correct income. How and in what manner the assessee proves and the standard of proof required for the purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Here, we have simply analysed the above provision. We shall be dealing with the law enunciated by the High Courts and the Supreme Court with regard to the aforesaid provision. 12. We now proceed to consider the questions referred to us for our opinion. The first question raises the issue as to whether the Income-tax Officer is entitled to take into consideration the additional fact noticed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in connection with the imposition of penalty, when the penalty proceedings were initiated solely on the basis that the gross profit shown was very low and lump sum addition of Rs. 12,000 was made in the trading account, which would bring the gross profit rate to 4% as in the past. It may be stated that the account version was not relied upon by the Income-tax Officer as the account was not supported by stock tally. The gross profit in the past was 4%, and so, on that basis, a lump sum addition was made and gross profit was brought to 4%. It may be stated that the account version was not relied upon by the Income-tax Officer as the account was not supported by stock tally. The gross profit in the past was 4%, and so, on that basis, a lump sum addition was made and gross profit was brought to 4%. The penalty proceedings were thus initiated on the sole basis of low gross profit. In appeal as well, the trading additions were confirmed on the basis of the finding that the assessee had net accretion to his capital to the extent of Rs. 13,326. 13. On behalf of the Revenue, Mr. C. R. Mehta vehemently urged that the additional fact of capital accretion found by the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner could be legitimately noticed by the Income-tax Officer in order to support the basis of initiation of penalty proceedings. The basis was no doubt addition in the trading account or the determination of the estimated gross profit rate. In order to establish that the assessee had shown very low gross profit, during penalty proceedings, evidence can be collected by the Income-tax Officer that in fact the gross profit shown is low and as such the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. What the Income-tax Officer has done in this case is that he had taken support from the fact and the finding arrived at by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to establish that the assessee had under-rated his profits. When there had been net accretion to the capital of the assessee, it would mean that this was only possible that the capital accretion had taken place on account of higher profits and in this manner, there had been concealment of the particulars of income. .14. Reliance was placed by Shri Mehta on Rahmat Development & Engineering Corporation vs. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 602 (Cal). In that case, the assessee constructed a building and showed the cost of construction in the accounts. According to the books of the assessee, the amount spent appeared to be Rs. 14,14,4 10. The departmental valuer estimated the cost as Rs. 23,58,500. The Income-tax Officer added the difference between the two amounts in different years under Section 69 and initiated penalty proceedings. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner observed that there had been gross and wilful neglect to disclose the correct expenditure and imposed penalty. 14,14,4 10. The departmental valuer estimated the cost as Rs. 23,58,500. The Income-tax Officer added the difference between the two amounts in different years under Section 69 and initiated penalty proceedings. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner observed that there had been gross and wilful neglect to disclose the correct expenditure and imposed penalty. In the quantum appeal, the Tribunal reduced the estimate of the cost of construction to Rs. 20,57,756 but upheld the order of penalty in its entirety. A contention was raised that the Income-tax Officer had initiated penalty proceedings on the ground that there had been concealment of income but the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had imposed the penalty on the ground that there had been furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was observed that the expressions used in Section 271(1)(c) are in disjunctive terms and these are two separate offences, the commission of one does not exclude the possibility of the commission of the other. The two charges can and very often do subsist .together. It was held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner upheld both the charges and the assessee had been given sufficient opportunity to refute both the charges. The facts showed that the inaccurate particulars of investment, which were furnished, was the modus operandi to conceal the true and real income of the assessee. The imposition was, therefore, valid. 15. Mr. Mehta submitted that the accretion to the capital was the modus operandi of the assessee in the present case to conceal the real gross profit and the real income. The capital accretion discovered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is a piece of evidence to prove the higher rate of gross profit and higher income received by the assessee. 16. With regard to this authority, Shri R. Balia, learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the basis of initiation of penalty proceedings was concealment of the real cost of construction, which was maintained in the quantum appeal as well, though the amount was reduced to some extent, so, the basis of initiation of penalty proceedings remained the same. Besides that, the difference between the book and valuer’s estimate was treated to be income under Section 69. It was taken to be the deemed income of the assessee, and so, on that basis, it can be said that there was non-disclosure of income and so, the imposition of penalty was held to be valid. Mr. Besides that, the difference between the book and valuer’s estimate was treated to be income under Section 69. It was taken to be the deemed income of the assessee, and so, on that basis, it can be said that there was non-disclosure of income and so, the imposition of penalty was held to be valid. Mr. Balia submitted that this authority thus is distinguishable and does not in any way help the Revenue. It is true that in this case, the Income-tax Officer had pressed into service Section 69 of the Act. The effect of Section 69 is that if there is an unexplained investment or unentered investment, then the value of such investment would be deemed to have been earned by the assessee and would be the income of the assessee for the financial year. The moment Section 69 is attracted, it becomes by the fiction of law, the income of the assessee. If it becomes the income of the assessee and if that income is not returned, then there is a non-disclosure of income. Sabyasachi Mukharji J., as he then was, after considering the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696, observed that non-disclosure of income might not automatically be considered to be a concealment. When their Lordships considered that aspect, on merits they found that the Tribunal in view of the Explanation was justified in upholding the penalty. It was observed that there was an unexplained investment, its valuation was quantified in the assessment proceedings, the assessee was given an opportunity, the assessee gave the explanation, which was not only found to be unsatisfactory but was also found to be incorrect and false. It is true that this case turned on its own facts. 17. Reliance was further placed by Shri Mehta on Kikabhai Abdulali Rangawala vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 465 (Bom). In that case, the Income-tax Officer found that there were certain cash credits in the closed accounts and the assessee was asked to explain them. The assessee admitted that there were some unvouched sales which were not accounted for in the books of account and which were shown as advances from certain parties and the assessee filed revised returns. In that case, the Income-tax Officer found that there were certain cash credits in the closed accounts and the assessee was asked to explain them. The assessee admitted that there were some unvouched sales which were not accounted for in the books of account and which were shown as advances from certain parties and the assessee filed revised returns. The Income-tax Officer held that the undisclosed sales should be treated as relating to cement trading account and not the general trading account and made additions to both the trading accounts. In the quantum appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the suppressed sales were in the general trading account. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty on both the charges of concealment of particulars of income and of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, in appeal against the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, held that there was suppression of sales and income but the Tribunal reduced the amount of penalty for the assessment year 1966-67 but upheld the penalty for the subsequent year. The Bombay High Court held that (headnote): “The assessee had admitted that there had been suppression of sales. The only explanation which the assessee could give was as to whether these suppressions were made deliberately or as a result of inadvertent errors in its books of account. In respect of this, it made no difference whatsoever as to whether the suppressed sales were alleged to be in the cement trading account or in the general trading account. Both these accounts were covered under the head of income from business or profession. It could not, therefore, be said that the assessee did not have a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the levy of penalty or that the whole basis on which the notices for the levy of penalty were issued was altered by the appellate orders. The Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the levy of penalty for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68.” 18. Asregards this case, Mr. Balia submitted that the basis of of initiation of penalty proceedings was suppression of sales. It was not material whether it was in the cement trading account or in the general trading account. Both the accounts were covered under the head “Income from business”. There was no change of basis on which the notices for the levy of penalty were issued. It was not material whether it was in the cement trading account or in the general trading account. Both the accounts were covered under the head “Income from business”. There was no change of basis on which the notices for the levy of penalty were issued. He submitted that in the instant case, the basis or the ground of initiation of penalty proceedings is changed. No capital accretion was discovered by the Income-tax Officer and so, the capital accretion could not be made the basis for penalty. We shall be examining this aspect while dealing with the case or with the stance taken by the assessee on question No. 1. .19. In Monoranjan Mukherjee vs. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 712 (Cal), cited by Shri Mehta, the Income-tax Officer discovered suppression of opening stock and of purchases made during the year 1966-67 and added a sum of .Rs. 38,464 shown as proceeds realised by sale of goods as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. In the quantum appeal, the addition was reduced to Rs. 31,464 which was confirmed by the Tribunal. But the Tribunal held that it should be charged under the head “Business” and not under “Other sources” as was done by the Income-tax Officer. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty. A contention was raised before the Tribunal that non-disclosure of income was considered under the head “Other sources” by the subordinate tax authorities, whereas it is so treated by the Tribunal under the head “Business”, and so, the basis of the penalty order ceased to exist and the penalty order became unsustainable. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal. It was held by the Calcutta High Court in that case that the assessee had concealed its income and the charge of concealment was upheld by the Tribunal. The basis for the initiation of penalty proceedings had not been altered by the subsequent finding of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal. The imposition of penalty was held to be valid. It may be stated that the change of head of Income has not been treated to be change or alteration of the basis or ground of initiation of the penalty proceedings. The ground or basis of initiation of penalty proceedings was the ground of concealment of particulars of income. 20. The imposition of penalty was held to be valid. It may be stated that the change of head of Income has not been treated to be change or alteration of the basis or ground of initiation of the penalty proceedings. The ground or basis of initiation of penalty proceedings was the ground of concealment of particulars of income. 20. In CIT vs. K.T. Thomas [1980] 123 ITR 31 (Ker), relied upon by Shri Mehta, the Income-tax Officer found that the gross profit returned was 9.7% less than the earlier year. On an examination of accounts, he found that there was heavy inflation of expenses under different heads, that certain expenses debited had not been really incurred and that there were a number of credits in the capital account of the assessee, which were not satisfactorily explained. So, he rejected the books of account and estimated a gross profit rate of 17.5 per cent, and made an addition of Rs. 1,22,000. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner made further enquiries and obtained certain statements from rubber estate owners and others, which strengthened the additions made by the Income-tax Officer and he confirmed the additions. In penalty proceedings, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner referred to the findings of the Income-tax Officer and to the materials gathered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,57,826. There were appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. In the quantum appeal, the Tribunal reduced the additions made to the trading account as well as the cash credit. With regard to the penalty proceedings, the Tribunal held that the addition made to the trading account was merely an estimate of gross profit rate and no penalty could be imposed on such materials. The Tribunal was also of the view that the evidence led before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not be used by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for the levy of penalty, and bereft of the evidence gathered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, there was no material to sustain the levy of a penalty. On a reference, at the instance of the Commissioner, the Kerala High Court held that the penalty was rightly imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and it was also held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was justified in looking into the materials before the Income-tax Officer as well as before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On a reference, at the instance of the Commissioner, the Kerala High Court held that the penalty was rightly imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and it was also held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was justified in looking into the materials before the Income-tax Officer as well as before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was observed that Section 271(1)(c) appears to be quite wide in scope. The Tribunal had based its order on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77 but that case was distinguished. In that case, the Gujarat High Court held that the penalty proceedings had commenced against the assessee on a particular footing, i.e., concealment of income. The Income-tax Officer added a sum of Rs. 58,000 realised by the sale of 1,383 bags of garlic. The final conclusion for levying the penalty was based on a different footing, i.e., on the footing of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The High Court also observed that it could not be said that the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the order imposing the penalty was passed. The very basis of penalty proceedings had disappeared when the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was no suppression of sales by the assessee. It wouldappear that in Lakhdhir Lalji’s case [1972] 85 ITR 77 (Guj), the very basis on which the penalty proceedings were founded had disappeared and levy of penalty was then based on a different footing for which reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee. Thus, on the facts of that case, it was held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty for concealment of income and this conclusion of the Tribunal was correct. Mr. Balia submitted that the basis of initiation of penalty proceedings had not changed in the Kerala case (CIT vs. Thomas [1980] 123 ITR 31). We shall see whether the basis has changed in the case in hand. 9.21. In CIT vs. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the findings given in the assessment proceedings though not conclusive, however, constitute good evidence. Reliance was placed by Mr. Mehta on these observations. Th