JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The Revenue has preferred this income-tax appeal under section 260A of the IT Act against order dated 27th November 2009 passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench 'B', Jaipur, whereby appeal filed by Revenue, against order of first appellate authority deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 10,87,752 has been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the appeal are that AO passed an order dated 4th June, 2008 under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act levying penalty of Rs. 10,87,752 on the following alleged concealed particulars of income and thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of income : (i) Trading addition on application of NP rate of 8% subject to further deduction on account of interest and remuneration paid to partners (6268288-4295681) Rs. 19,72,607/- (ii) Unexplained cash credit under section 68 in the name of three partners @ Rs. 3lac each Rs. 9,00,000/- (iii) Interest disallowed on the unexplained capital introduced by the partners Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs. 29,72,607/- 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal, which was allowed by CIT(A)-III, Jaipur vide order dated 23rd January, 2009 and penalty levied by AO was set aside. Thereafter, Revenue preferred an appeal before Tribunal, which was dismissed by Tribunal vide order dated 27th November 2009. Hence, Revenue has now preferred this appeal before this Court. 5. Submission of learned counsel for appellant is that assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income as mentioned in assessment order, therefore, penalty was rightly levied by AO, which has wrongly been set aside by appellate authority and Tribunal. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and examined the reasons assigned by appellate authority as well as Tribunal for setting aside the penalty order. 7. The appellate authority as well as the Tribunal both considered the matter in detail and by speaking order set aside the penalty levied by AO, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The relevant portion of para 7 of order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under : "Para 7...........The enquiry conducted by the AO may lead to arrive at the findings as to whether the particulars disclosed are truthful or false or not proved to be satisfactory. The relevant portion of para 7 of order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under : "Para 7...........The enquiry conducted by the AO may lead to arrive at the findings as to whether the particulars disclosed are truthful or false or not proved to be satisfactory. In the first case it would be a positive case of no concealment, in second case it would be a positive case of concealment and in third case benefit of doubt will go in favour of the assessee. The case of the assessee falls within third category where the alleged fact of introduction of capital is found to be not proved satisfactorily. Therefore, it is not a case of positive concealment and benefit of doubt goes in favour of the assessee. There is no dispute that trading addition was made on the basis of estimation because the results shown by the assessee was not found satisfactory by the AO. Where an estimated addition was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee to the extent of amount in difference shown by the assessee and estimated by the Department depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case............ .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... ... Under these circumstances when in the present case there was no positive evidence beyond doubt regarding estimated trading addition that the amount in difference between the result shown by the assessee and that estimated by the AO was resultant of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. The AO had rejected the books of account and estimated the trading addition on the basis that the assessee had not maintained site-wise account, no head-wise details of claimed purchases were furnished, no separate head of expenses was maintained, work in progress was not declared, some wages were shown outstanding without complete details of creditors, stock register was not maintained and miscellaneous expenses on water transportation etc. were not verifiable and purchase vouchers of sand, steel, bajri etc. were self made etc. Assessee explained reasons for the above defects which were not accepted by the AO as not found satisfactory. The AO accordingly made estimation. were not verifiable and purchase vouchers of sand, steel, bajri etc. were self made etc. Assessee explained reasons for the above defects which were not accepted by the AO as not found satisfactory. The AO accordingly made estimation. The circumstances suggest that it may be just and proper case of making estimated trading addition but an inference therefrom cannot be drawn beyond doubt especially keeping in mind the nature of work in not maintaining those books and details supported with proper vouchers etc. that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee to attract the penal provisions. In view of above discussion and keeping in mind the fact and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty in absence of positive evidence with the Department that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee towards the addition in question. The first appellate order on the issue is thus upheld." 8. The above finding of the Tribunal makes it clear that additions made by the AO were based on estimation only. A fact or allegation based on estimation cannot be said to be correct only, it can be incorrect also. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty was wrongly levied by the AO. The basis for levying penalty in the present case is only estimation, which is purely a question of fact and there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal both. 9. The income-tax appeal can be admitted only on substantial question of law, but in our view no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal so as to entertain it. The appellate authority as well as the Tribunal both have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that additions in the present case are based on estimation only. 10. In these circumstances, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.Appeal Dismissed. *******