A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) THIS decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected appeal being IT Appeal No. 33 of 2000 because both the appeals involve identical points and they relate to same assessee except the difference being that both arise out of the different assessment years. ( 2 ) THIS is an appeal filed by CIT under Section 260a of the IT Act, against an order dt. 22nd March, 2000 passed by Tribunal in ITA Nos. 404/ind/1995 and 575/ind/1995. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law:whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty under Section 271 (l) (c) of the IT Act can be levied as the assessee had surrendered additional income in good faith with a view to buy peace of mind even though additional income was treated as concealed income by the Department, on the basis of the documents seized during search conducted under Section 132 (1) of the IT Act? ( 3 ) HEARD Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik for the appellant-Revenue, and Shri M. Phadke, learned Counsel for respondent-assessee. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting aside the order passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) remand the case again to Tribunal for deciding the appeals afresh on merits. ( 5 ) AS rightly urged by the learned Counsel for appellant, the Tribunal while deciding the appeal rather while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee by reversing the order of CIT (A) did not take note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported in K. P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) and also did not examine the impact of Explns. 3 and 4 appended to Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. According to learned Counsel, the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case reported in (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) (supra) has diluted the rigour of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) on which the reliance was placed by Tribunal and hence an error is crept in the impugned order. According to learned Counsel, the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case reported in (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) (supra) has diluted the rigour of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) on which the reliance was placed by Tribunal and hence an error is crept in the impugned order. It is also contended that it was equally obligatory upon the Tribunal, it being the last Court of Appeal for facts and law to have examined the case in the context of Expln. 3 or 4 appended to Section 271 (l) (c) ibid as the case may be with a view to find out whether case of assessee falls in any of the categories of cases specified in any of these Explanations. According to learned Counsel when the penalty proceedings arose out of the case of search/seizure, the rigour of Explanation appended to section gets attracted. ( 6 ) PERUSAL of impugned order indicates that the case ought to have been decided keeping in view the aforesaid submissions because both the submissions did have material bearing over the issue involved in the case and secondly there has to be a finding of fact one way or other by the Tribunal after taking note of the aforementioned submissions. This Court as a Court of Appeal only decides legal questions arising out of impugned order. It cannot decide the question of fact de novo unless a pure finding of fact one way or other is decided. Since we are not satisfied with the manner in which the appeal was decided by the Tribunal, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to Tribunal for deciding the appeals afresh. This Court does have power to decide the appeal even on questions not decided as also has a power to remand. We prefer to follow latter course because a finding on facts can be arrived at only by the Tribunal being last Court of Appeal on facts and not by this Court. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of aforesaid discussion, we do not wish to take note of the facts in detail nor we wish to deal with any of the submissions urged by the parties. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of aforesaid discussion, we do not wish to take note of the facts in detail nor we wish to deal with any of the submissions urged by the parties. It is made, clear that we have simply taken note of the submissions urged by appellant but has not examined its worth on its merits. They, therefore, need not be taken as our finding on merits. Since the submissions do have a bearing over the issue and hence we have taken note of and made basis for remand. It is now for the Tribunal to examine the facts of the case in detail and then examine the case in the context of submissions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties and the legal submissions taken note of supra with a view to find out whether the case falls in the ratio of Madhusudanan (supra) as urged by appellant and whether any of the Explanations appended to Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act is attracted? Let the appeals be decided within six months as an outer limit by the Tribunal after affording an opportunity to the parties strictly in accordance with law. Record of the case, if requisitioned be returned to Tribunal forthwith. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 20th Feb. , 2006 and produce the copy of this order to enable the Hon'ble Members of the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits as indicated above. No cost. .