Judgment :- P.A. Mohammed, J. This batch of Tax Revision Cases arise from a common order of the Kerala Agricultural Income tax appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam dated 23.11.1995 in A.I.T.A. Nos. 140 to 143 of 1995. 2. The common appellant before us was an assessee under the provisions of Kerala Agricultural Income tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act). The Agricultural Income tax Officer issued notices proposing to impose penalty under S.20 of the Act against the assessee for the years 1986-87 to 1989-90 alleging that he had wilfully concealed income from an extent of 6.02 acres of agricultural lands in his possession for the aforesaid years. The officer pointed out that though the assessee had returned income from 6.02 acres of land for the assessment year 1990-91, he had not disclosed the said extent and income therefrom in his returns relating to the previous years, that is to say 1986-87 to 1989-90. The said proposal was objected to by the assessee and thus pleaded that there was no concealment of income since he had voluntarily submitted the returns. However, after considering the objections, the assessing authority imposed a penalty equivalent to 50% of the tax due for the four years in question. As against those orders the assessee filed appeals before the appellate authority but met with no success. Being aggrieved by the said appellate order the assessee filed further appeals before the Kerala Sales tax appellate Tribunal. However, those appeals were rejected by the Tribunal. As against the common order passed by the appellate Tribunal dated 23.11.1995, the present tax revision cases are filed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and also the Special Government Pleader for Taxes who entered appearance on behalf of the Department. 4. In the present proceeding, we are empowered to interfere with the order of the Tribunal only in case where it has either decided the case erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. What is urged by counsel for the appellant is that the decision of the Tribunal is erroneous and the levy of penalty is unauthorized under S.20 of the Act. ' annexure- a is a copy of the order passed by the Officer levying penalty for the aforesaid years equivalent to 50% of the tax, viz., Rs. 7,938/-, Rs. 9,022/-Rs. 9,304 and Rs. 8,851/- for the aforesaid years. ' annexure- a is a copy of the order passed by the Officer levying penalty for the aforesaid years equivalent to 50% of the tax, viz., Rs. 7,938/-, Rs. 9,022/-Rs. 9,304 and Rs. 8,851/- for the aforesaid years. As pointed out earlier the reason stated for imposing the penalty is that the assessee had wilfully concealed income from 6.02 acres in his possession for the aforesaid years. The appellate Assistant Commissioner and the appellate Tribunal did not find any reason to deviate from the above finding entered by Agricultural Income tax Officer. 5. The levy of penalty is authorised under S.20 of the Act. The relevant pro vision in the present context is contained in sub-s.(1) of S.20 which deals with imposition of penalty for concealment of income. The said provision is as follows: "20. Penalty for concealment of income: - (1) If the Agricultural Income tax Officer, the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner or the appellate Tribunal is satisfied that any person - (a) Co) (c) has concealed the particulars of his agricultural income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount of Agricultural Income tax and super tax if any, payable by him, a sum not exceeding that amount: Provided that" The indispensable requirement for invoking the above provision is that the officer or authority who proposes to initiate the action shall be satisfied that the person concerned has concealed the particulars of his agricultural income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. When there is such satisfaction, the officer or the authority may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum not exceeding the amount of agricultural Incometax, if any, payable in respect of the income involved in the concealment. This would indicate the maximum penalty payable under this provision is the sum equal to the tax payable in respect of the income involved in the concealment. That does not mean the maximum penalty shall be levied in all cases. The provision confers the discretion on the officer or authority in determining the quantum of penalty and it shall hence be exercised reasonably applying the mind to the facts of each case. 6. That does not mean the maximum penalty shall be levied in all cases. The provision confers the discretion on the officer or authority in determining the quantum of penalty and it shall hence be exercised reasonably applying the mind to the facts of each case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced an argument that the assessee has not deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of his income in the return in respect of the years in question. In otherwords, his case is that there was no dishonest or contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee in furnishing the inaccurate particulars. First of all the assessee admitted that he had not furnished the particulars of his agricultural income in respect of 6.02 acres of land in his possession for the aforesaid years. When such an admission is made it is for the assessee to establish that there was no dishonest intention on his part in not furnishing the particulars of his income. That burden has not been discharged by the assessee. As pointed out earlier, the levy of penalty is authorised under clause (c) of sub-s.(1) of S.20 of the Act in two specified circumstances, that is to say, when the assessee has concealed the particulars of his agricultural income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This is only alternative and not conjunctive. When the assessee admits that he has not furnished the particulars of his agricultural income, his case will fall within the first circumstance referred to above, 'which means that he has concealed the particulars of his agricultural income. Of course, the case projected by the counsel is the furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income was not deliberate or intentional. Even assuming Ms case falls within the second circumstance it is for the assessee to discharge the burden that he has not deliberately furnished the inaccurate particulars. From the records available before us it is arduous for this court to say that the assessee had not deliberately or intentionally furnished the inaccurate particulars. In any case the assessee is liable for penalty under S.20 of the Act. We do not find any justifiable material to disturb the finding of the authorities below in this' regard. The rate of penalty fixed by the officer does not appear to be unreasonable or arbitrary. In any case the assessee is liable for penalty under S.20 of the Act. We do not find any justifiable material to disturb the finding of the authorities below in this' regard. The rate of penalty fixed by the officer does not appear to be unreasonable or arbitrary. We therefore confirm the levy of penalty at the rate of 50% of the tax that may be payable on the agricultural income involved in the concealment. 7. The second point strenuously contended before us is that the officer can only impose penalty under clause (c) a sum not exceeding the amount of tax leviable on the concealed income. No doubt, such levy of penalty is in addition to the amount of tax payable on the concealed income. It is pointed out that the quantum of agricultural income in respect of which penalty has been imposed, has been reduced by the appellate Assistant Commissioner as disclosed from Annexure-D. Annexure-D is the common order passed by him on the appeals relating to the above years arising out of the orders passed under S.35 of the Act. As per Annexure-D the appellate Assistant Commissioner, for the reasons recorded therein directed the officer to modify the assessments for the years 1986-1987 to 1989-90. In this context counsel for the assessee submitted that so far no modified assessment orders have been passed by the officer pursuant to Annexure-D and in case the assessment are modified, there would be reduction in the quantum of tax payable by the assessee. Therefore, counsel pleads that there should be a corresponding reduction in the penalty leviable under S.20 of the Act. What is provided in clause (c) of sub-s.(1) of S.20, as pointed out earlier, is that the levy of penalty is limited to the extent of a sum not exceeding the amount of tax that may be levied on the concealed income. We have confirmed the levy of penalty at the rate of 50% of the tax, payable on concealed income. Therefore, the counsel argues that even if levy of penalty is sustained, the quantum of penalty shall be 50% of the tax that may be payable as per the modified assessment orders to be passed by the officer. We see some force in this contention. Clause (c) of sub-s.(1) of S.20 prescribes the limit of penalty. Therefore, the counsel argues that even if levy of penalty is sustained, the quantum of penalty shall be 50% of the tax that may be payable as per the modified assessment orders to be passed by the officer. We see some force in this contention. Clause (c) of sub-s.(1) of S.20 prescribes the limit of penalty. The words 'a sum not exceeding that amount' contained in the said clause carry the meaning as a sum not exceeding the agricultural income tax on the income concealed. The words 'that amount' signify the amount of tax determined by the original, appellate or revisional authority. It necessarily follows, if the* quantum of tax fixed by the officer is reduced, there shall be a corresponding proportionate reduction in the amount of penalty payable by the assessee on the income concealed. 8. What remains is the consequential order to be passed in this case. In this context the provisions contained in sub-s.(7) of S.78 of the Kerala Agricultural Income tax Act, 1991 is very relevant. Sub-s.(7) of S.78 is as follows: "If as a result of the revision any change becomes necessary in any assessment or penalty, the High Court may direct the agricultural income-tax authority to amend the assessment or penalty order accordingly and on such amendment being made, any amount over paid by any person shall be refunded to him, or the further amount of tax or penalty due from him shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as the case may be". Since the levy of penalty at the rate of 50% of the tax is upheld by us, the quantum of penalty has to be determined in view of Annexure-D order of the appellate Assistant Commissioner. We therefore, direct the officer to amend the order imposing penalty to the extent necessary in the light of the reduction in the quantum of tax on the concealed income as per Annexure-D order of the Additional appellate Assistant Commissioner. These Tax Revision Cases are disposed of accordingly.