JUDGMENT 1. Shri Saxena, learned counsel for the Revenue, heard on the point of admission. 2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to direct the Tribunal to refer to this court, the case arising out of its order dated December 7, 1990, passed in I.T.A No. 193/IND/85, assessment year 1979-80 and its refusal to refer the case by order dated March 27, 1991, passed in R.A. No. 28/IND/91. It was strenuously argued by learned standing counsel that the explanation offered by the assessee-opponent was palpably false and as such penalty should have been imposed on him. The matter relates to the unexplained investment in purchase of certain properties. The question sought to be referred is "on the facts and in the circumstances of the case", whether there is any material with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal justifying the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ? 3. On appreciation of the facts on record, we come to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the assessee as to the investment of Rs. 33,400 was not found to be false, and it was plausible, though not believed in the assessment proceedings. It has been further held that, under these circumstances, no presumption as to concealment of income could be drawn. In the result, the penalty was deleted. There could be no quarrel with the proposition as argued by learned counsel that perversity of the order does not raise a question of law ; but, in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has categorically found that there was no concealment of income. The explanation offered by the assessee was not held to be false. In the assessment proceedings, it was plausible, though not believable. In the instant case, we find no perversity in the order. No referable question of law can be said to arise. 4. The case is, therefore, summarily dismissed.