JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 31st July 2013 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench [hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"] in IT [SS] A No. 07/Rjt/2009 for the Block period, whereby, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the assessee and has confirmed the penalty by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BFA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"], the assessee has preferred the present Tax Appeal to consider the following questions of law: [A] "Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the decision of the ITAT was not perverse in as much as firstly it does not consider the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant with respect to levying penalty under Section 158BFA of the Act? [B] Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, when the Tax Appeal No. 478 of 2006 is pending in the High Court of Gujarat against the original assessment, is it just and proper for the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings of penalty against the appellant under Section 158BFA of the Act? [C] Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in reversing the order of CIT [Appeals] without considering the legal contentions raised by the appellant only based on judgment of this Hon'ble Court, reported in 341 ITR 271 and 341 ITR 349 [Guj]?" 2. Heard Shri B.T. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee and Shri Pranav G. Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 3. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that in a search which was conducted under Section 132 of the I.T. Act at the business premises of the assessee, and in the course of search, gold jewellery weighing 6479.55 grams was found, out of which jewellery weighing 2735.50 grams, valuing at Rs. 11,87,653/- was seized. The assessee filed return for the block period on 31st January 2002 showing undisclosed income at Rs. Nil, in response to the notice under Section 158BC of the Act. 11,87,653/- was seized. The assessee filed return for the block period on 31st January 2002 showing undisclosed income at Rs. Nil, in response to the notice under Section 158BC of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention that the gold found in search operation was not of the ownership of the firm and thereby determined the value of excess gold of 3008.200 grams at Rs. 13,06,000/-, as undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period under Section 158 of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer vide show cause notice dated 31.10.2003 under Section 158BFA of the Act, which was confirmed upto the learned Tribunal and which is the subject matter of the present Tax Appeal. 4. It is required to be noted that against addition of Rs. 13,06,000/- as an undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period under Section 158BC of the Act, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT [A]. The learned CIT [A] confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. The learned Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT [A]. Against the order passed by the learned Tribunal confirming the order passed by the learned CIT [A] confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 13,06,000/- as an undisclosed income of the assessee, the matter was carried before this Court in Tax Appeal No. 478 of 2006, wherein by the judgment and order dated 22nd December 2014, the Division Bench of this Court has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. Thus, the quantum appeal came to be allowed and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances, the present Tax Appeal arising out of an order of penalty under Section 158BFA is also required to be remanded to the Assessing Officer. 5. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such the present Tax Appeal was required to be heard along with Tax Appeal No. 478 of 2006, however, inadvertently and by mistake, the present Tax Appeal was tagged with Tax Appeal No. 468 of 2006. 6. 5. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such the present Tax Appeal was required to be heard along with Tax Appeal No. 478 of 2006, however, inadvertently and by mistake, the present Tax Appeal was tagged with Tax Appeal No. 468 of 2006. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and considering the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 478 of 2006 by which the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer with respect to the addition of undisclosed income, which is on the basis of search conducted at the business premises of the assessee, the present Tax Appeal is partly allowed and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits. 7. Resultantly, Tax Appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.