ORDER The order in this case shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Civil Case No. 713 of 1985 [CIT, Jabalpur vs. M/s. Chunnilal Sitaram, Narsinghpura] as both arise out of similar orders of the Tribunal refusing to refer certain question which, according to the applicant-Department, are question of law arising out of the order of the facts and Tribunal. The two cases relate to two different assessment years but the facts and circumstances in both the cases are identical. 2. The respondent-assessee is engaged in manufacture and sale of bidis. The assessee submitted returns which were later on revised. The ITO found that the closing stocks of previous year were undervalued and thus concealed the particulars of income. On this finding, penalty proceedings were initiated under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The notice was issued to the assessee. The explanation was that the stock left at the end of the previous year contained rotten leaves and as such was valued at a lower rate. The explanation did not satisfy the authority and, therefore, penalty was imposed in both the cases. Appeals before the CIT(A) failed and the penalties imposed were confirmed. Further appeals before the Tribunal were allowed and the penalties were deleted. It observed that the Department failed to prove any concealment and the case rested merely on undervaluation and addition. It further observed that income has been arrived at estimate of rate only and not by particular amount of concealment. The Department then applied before the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the IT Act for a reference of the following question for opinion of this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ?" In addition, in case relating to asst. yr. 1971-72 (MCC No. 62 of 1984), a reference on the following question was also claimed : "Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in view of r. 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the Tribunal was justified in entertaining fresh evidence in respect of the contention of the assessee that the closing stock had been sold in the subsequent year at lower rate ?" The Tribunal rejected the application holding that no such question/questions of law arose out of the Tribunals order. Hence, these application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act for a direction to the Tribunal for stating the case and for making a reference on these questions to this Court for opinion. 3. So far as the common question in both the cases is concerned, the view of the Tribunal while declining to refer the question is that the penalty has been cancelled after considering the entire material evidence on record. Consequently, it has been held to be a finding of fact giving rise to no question of law. In our opinion, in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal cannot be said to be unjustified in taking such a view. In CIT vs. Ashok Marketing Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC), the Supreme Court held that whether or not an assessee has concealed his income is a question to be decided on the facts of the case. In that case, the decision of the Tribunal was based upon the assessees agreement with another concern and that was accepted by the Tribunal is proved. The Supreme Court, consequently, held that no question of law really arose from the order of the Tribunal. In CIT vs. Hind Grain Suppliers (1988) 171 ITR 681 (All), the Allahabad High Court held that where the explanation offered by the assessee regarding additions made in income was upheld by the appellate authority as bona fide, no question of law arose since the explanation offered by the assessee is bona fide or not is a question of fact. A Division Bench of this Court in Hansraj Aggarwal vs. Addl. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 688 (MP), held that where the finding of the Tribunal is that the charge of gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee stood clearly proved, is a finding of fact and no question of law arises out of the Tribunals order. This view is also shared by the Rajasthan High Court as appears from Badri Prasad Om Prakash vs. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 440 (Raj). These authorities, therefore, clearly establish that whether or not there is a wilful concealment and whether the explanation offered for such concealment is a question of fact. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion, that no question of law arises out of the Tribunals order requiring it to state the case and refer such question for opinion of the High Court. 4. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion, that no question of law arises out of the Tribunals order requiring it to state the case and refer such question for opinion of the High Court. 4. As regards the additional question sought to be referred in MCC No. 62 of 1984, suffice it to say that the Tribunal has observed that no objection was ever raised when such evidence was sought to be adduced by the assessee. In fact, Shri Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant, did not seriously press for reference of this question. 5. In view of the discussion aforesaid, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises out of the Tribunals order. The applications are, therefore, rejected. No order at to costs.