JUDGMENT DR. R. R. MISRA, J. - During the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee carried on sarrafa business. As a result of survey dated 15th June, 1982, not only the account books were rejected but findings were recorded on the basis of some parchas recovered at the time of survey that the assessee has suppressed its turnover. These findings recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal which is the last fact-finding authority in the course of assessment proceedings were thereafter not challenged by the assessee and the matter became final inter-parties. Thereafter, penalty proceedings under section 15-A(1)(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were initiated against the assessee and an opportunity afresh was afforded to the assessee. On a consideration of the explanation furnished by the assessee during the course of penalty proceedings the Sales Tax Officer recorded finding to the effect that on the basis of parchas recovered on the spot from the business premises of the assessee, it is clear that the assessee had been doing business outside the books and had also suppressed its turnover. He has also recorded a finding that the business was in fact carried on in a very large scale than shown in the account books. Third finding recorded by the Sales Tax Officer during the course of penalty proceedings is that there was mens rea present for making the said evasion. On these findings and on a consideration of the explanation of the assessee, the Sales Tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,000 on the assessee. The first appellate authority knocked off the penalty in question. Aggrieved, the department filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 11th May, 1987, and the penalty order passed by the Sales Tax Officer has been restored. I have heard learned counsel for the assessee. His first submission is that in the present case penalty has been imposed merely on the findings recorded in the assessment proceedings and the same is not permissible under the law. For his submission, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Satya Confectionary Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1983] 53 STC 118 (All.); 1980 UPTC 356. His first submission is that in the present case penalty has been imposed merely on the findings recorded in the assessment proceedings and the same is not permissible under the law. For his submission, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Satya Confectionary Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1983] 53 STC 118 (All.); 1980 UPTC 356. From a perusal of the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, I, however, find that the situation which was present in the case of Satya Confectionary Works [1983] 53 STC 118 (All.); 1980 UPTC 356, does not operate in the present case. The authorities below during the course of penalty proceedings were very clear in their mind that the penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings and that during the course of penalty proceedings they had again given an opportunity to the assessee to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed and after a consideration of the explanation of the assessee the said findings, which I have set out above, have been recorded by the Sales Tax Officer concerned. Therefore, in my opinion the ratio of the case in Satya Confectionary Works [1983] 53 STC 118 (All.); 1980 UPTC 356, is not available to the learned counsel for the assessee in the present case. The other case relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee is the case of Munna Lal Mahajan v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1982 UPTC 980. In this case the case of Satya Confectionary Works [1983] 53 STC 118 (All.); 1980 UPTC 356, was relied upon and since this case was remanded back to the Tribunal it is also of no help to the learned counsel for the assessee. The third case relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee is the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Nand Mohan Madan Mohan [1984] 57 STC 35 (All.); 1984 UPTC 218. While relying on this decision, learned counsel has laid emphasis on the question that mens rea was a necessary element for attracting penalty. The relevant portion of section 15-A reads as follows : "Section 15-A. Penalties in certain cases. While relying on this decision, learned counsel has laid emphasis on the question that mens rea was a necessary element for attracting penalty. The relevant portion of section 15-A reads as follows : "Section 15-A. Penalties in certain cases. - (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person - (c) has concealed the particulars of his turnover or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such turnover; or ..........................." From a perusal of the above, it is clear that the above clause (c) is in two parts. The first part relates to concealment and the second part relates to the deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of turnover. It is in regard to the second part which relates to the deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars that in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Nand Mohan Madan Mohan [1984] 57 STC 35 (All.); 1984 UPTC 218, the said view was taken that mens rea is a necessary ingredient. In so far as the present case is concerned, the position is still better inasmuch as the Sales Tax Officer has after consideration of the explanation of the assessee recorded a definite finding even with regard to the concealment that mens rea was there and the said order of the Sales Tax Officer has been confirmed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the impugned order. This authority, therefore, could be of no help to the assessee so far as the question of mens rea is concerned. On the other hand, I find that the learned Standing Counsel has placed strong reliance on the aforesaid decision in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Nand Mohan Madan Mohan [1984] 57 STC 35 (All.); 1984 UPTC 218, and has argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the present case that there was a concealment is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in revision. Agreeing with the aforesaid view, I find that so far as the present case is concerned, the Tribunal has itself on a consideration of the materials on record and the explanation of the assessee furnished during the course of penalty proceedings recorded a finding of fact that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its turnover. I also find that this finding has been recorded by the Tribunal independently of the findings arrived at during the course of assessment proceedings. I also find that this finding has been recorded by the Tribunal independently of the findings arrived at during the course of assessment proceedings. Learned Standing Counsel has in support of his submission also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of A.D. & Sons v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1988 UPTC 1437, wherein finding of mala fide was recorded against the assessee and it was held that penalties had been rightly confirmed by the Tribunal. No other point was pressed. Thus, all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee fail. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred). Interim stay order dated 16th October, 1987, passed by this Court is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed.