JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J.— The instant appeal is by the revenue questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 7.2.2005 passed by the income Tax appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 109/Bang/2002 and raising following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no penalty would ba laviad in the casa of the assessee despite the assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealing particulars of income in the return of in corosfiled on 30.7.1993 which was delected during course of assessment proceedings and an addition of Rs. 4,82,097/- having been added and the same being accepted by the assessee? 2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in proceeding to hold that there was a bona fide mistake in the computer and all the details had been furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer which was wholly an incorrect statement since the same vas detected by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings and therefore the additions came to be made which was accepted by the assessee and consequently the penalty levied by the Assessing officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner vas fully justified? 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows: The assessee is a dealer in liquor. It did not file return of income by due date. A search vas conducted under Section 132 of the Act by the Department on 6.8.1992 and notice was issued Under Section 142(1) of the Act on 12.11.1992. The assessee filed return of income in respect of the assessment year 1992-93 declaring the total income of Rs. 5,39,550/-. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for assessment. After considering the materials available on record, the authority found that the assessee had deliberately concealed its income and furnished inappropriate particulars. once again, notices were issued to the assessee to submit its explanation. Thereafter, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared before the assessment authorities and furnished particulars. Than, the assessment order was passed on 29.3.1995 vide Annexure-D. Assailing the order of assessment, an appeal filed before the Assistant Commissioner of commercial Taxes came to be rejected by order dated 29.9.95 and penalty was imposed as per Annexure-c Questioning the said order, the assessee approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench A in ITA No. 109/Bang/2002. Than, the assessment order was passed on 29.3.1995 vide Annexure-D. Assailing the order of assessment, an appeal filed before the Assistant Commissioner of commercial Taxes came to be rejected by order dated 29.9.95 and penalty was imposed as per Annexure-c Questioning the said order, the assessee approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench A in ITA No. 109/Bang/2002. when the said matter was taken up for consideration, the appellate Tribunal after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and the order passed by the assessing officer and the order passed in penalty proceedings has allowed the appeal in part and directed the assessing officer to levy minimum penalty in respect of the unaccounted purchase, unexplained expenditure and unaccounted sales. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal before this Court seeking appropriate relief as set out in the memorandum of appeal. 3. During the course of canvassing his arguments, Sri. seshachala, learned Counsel for the revenue at the outset submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the finding of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. without looking into the observations made in the Order at para-7 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the Tribunal has proceeded to allow the appeal following the judgment in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, AIR 1987 SC 2008 . He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in placing reliance on the above cited lodgment, as the same has been overruled by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin, AIR 2001 SC 2704 . Therefore, he submits that order impugned cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 4. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee supporting the impugned order contended that it is only after due consideration of the material on record and after going through the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Assistant commissioner of commercial Taxes, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order. Hence, interference is uncalled for. 5. After considering the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties, the only point for our consideration in the instant appeal is: whetherthe order impugned passed by the Appellate Tribunal is sustainable in law? 6. Hence, interference is uncalled for. 5. After considering the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties, the only point for our consideration in the instant appeal is: whetherthe order impugned passed by the Appellate Tribunal is sustainable in law? 6. After careful perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that, in fact the Tribunal has discussed the reasonings in detail, but committed a grave error much less irregularity in not considering the finding of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. After careful evaluation of the material on file, oral and documentary evidence on record, except referring that the assesses has produced inappropriate particulars before the Assessing Officer, nothing worthwhile is forthcoming. However, the Tribunal by following the decision in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, AIR 1987 SC 2008 held that though the assessee had furnished all the details before the Assessing Officer, due to bonafide mistake in the computer, there was omission while submitting the particulars. This fact has not been looked into while recording a finding of fact by the Tribunal. The Tribunal without assigning any valid or cogent reasons has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and requires re-consideration, in view of the fact that the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, AIR 1987 SC 2008 was overruled by the Apex Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan v. Commissioner of Income Tax Reported in 251 ITR. 7. Fox the aforesaid reasons, we answer all the substantial questions of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Order passed by the income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA NO. 109/HANG/2002 is hereby sat aside. The matter stands remitted back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, strictly in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and dispose of the same expeditiously, after affording an opportunity to the parties. All contentions are left open 9. Ordered accordingly.