Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. The assesses is a registered firm. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 1970-71. It declared a loss of Rs. 9,190. The Assessing Officer made certain additions and found that the assesses was liable to pay tax on a total income of Rs. 1,34,470. On appeal, an addition of Rs. 85,000 to the trading account and another addition of Rs. 7,800 on account of disallowance of expenses were sustained. 2. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Vide order dated November 29, 1975, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed the penalty of Rs. 92,800. The assessee appealed. The Tribunal sustained the claim of the assessee with the finding that the additions have been made on the basis of estimate and that there was no concealment. 3. The Revenue filed a petition under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was dismissed. On a petition under Section 256(2) and in pursuance of the directions given by a Bench of this court, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is not justified in taking the view that mens rea need not be established in the proceedings drawn under Section 271(l)(c) ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that no penalty under Section 271(l)(c) is leviable in this case ?" 4. Mr. R. P. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, has very fairly stated that in view of the material on record, the first question does not really arise in this case. 5. On the second question, the solitary contention raised by learned counsel is that the Tribunal has not noticed the provision in Explanation to Section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thus, the order is vitiated and the question should be answered in favour of the Revenue, He places reliance on the Full Bench decision of this court in Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 652. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that according to the Revenue, the licence fee for the assessment year 1969-70 was Rs. 18,72,466. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that according to the Revenue, the licence fee for the assessment year 1969-70 was Rs. 18,72,466. For the assessment year 1970-71, the licence fee paid by the assessee was Rs. 17,61,000. On account of the decrease in licence fee, it was claimed that the assessee could not have suffered a loss. It would have made an additional profit. The case of the assessee was that the margin of profit had not gone up. In fact, it claimed having sold liquor at a lower rate. Ultimately, the addition was made on the basis of an estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment of any transaction or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 7. The Tribunal has noticed the factual position. It also noticed the import of the Explanation to Section 271(l)(c). Ultimately, it has found as a fact that the assessee had discharged the initial onus and that there being no evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty was not leviable. 8. We find that the view taken by the Tribunal is not contrary to the Full Bench decision in Vishwakarma Industries case [1982] 135 ITR 652 (P & H). Equally, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal in holding that the penalty was not leviable on the assessee under Section 271(1). Thus, the question is answered against the Revenue. 9. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal is affirmed. It is held that the first question does not arise. The second question is answered against the Revenue. Since no one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee, we make no order as to costs.