Judgment G.C.Bharuka, J. 1. This tax case arises out of an order passed by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act" only), directing the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income tax in view of the Explanation to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has committed an error on records and misdirected itself in inferring that the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income ?" The reference relates to the assessment year 1968-69. On January 7, 1967, the assessee had sold all its assets and properties to Messrs. New Marine Coal (Bengal) P. Ltd. Thereafter, the business of the assessee was totally suspended. On December 31, 1970, the assessee submitted its return of income for the relevant assessment year disclosing the income as Nil. But, in the return itself, the fact of sale of the colliery was duly disclosed by the assessee, by putting a note that the "colliery was sold on January 1, 1967". The assessee had also filed a copy of the sale deed. On the basis of this disclosure, the Income-tax Officer computed certain income of the assessee under Sec. 41(2) of the Act and, for the purpose of computation, the Income-tax Officer adopted a certain basis according to his own mode of computation. Consequently, the assessee was subjected to a penalty of Rs. 1,11,933 under the provisions of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Against this order, the assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal, on a review of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also by reference to the books of account, sale deed and other cogent materials, came to the conclusion that : "On the basis of the documents, it is proved that the assessee did not conceal any income during the year under appeal." On this finding, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of penalty. This is clearly a finding of fact. 3 Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of CIT V/s. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14, has examined the question involved in the present case and has held that (at page 22) : "The position, therefore, in law is clear. If the returned income is less than 80 per cent. of the assessed income, the presumption is raised against the assessee that the assessee is guilty of fraud or gross or wilful neglect as a result of which he has concealed the income but this presumption can be rebutted. The rebuttal must be on materials relevant and cogent. It is for the fact-finding body to judge the relevancy and sufficiency of the materials. If such a fact-finding body, bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, comes to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the onus, it becomes a conclusion of fact. No question of law arises. In this case, the Tribunal has borne in mind the relevant principles of law and has also judged the facts on record. It is not a case that there was no evidence or there was such evidence on which no reasonable man could have accepted the explanation of the assessee. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim for reference under Sec. 256(1) and the High Court correctly did not entertain the application for reference under Sec. 256(2) of the Act." In the present case as well, the departmental representative could not show or even urge that the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal was in any way perverse or can be said to have been vitiated for non-consideration of relevant materials or has been arrived at by taking into account any irrelevant materials. 4 In this view of the matter, the. finding of the Tribunal appears to be a finding of fact and no question of law arises out of the impugned order of the Tribunal for a reference under the provisions of Sec. 256 of the Act. In my view, the reference itself is incompetent and, accordingly, rejected. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 5. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in terms of Sec. 260 of the Act. B.C.Basak, J. 6 I agree.