Assessee disclosed fact of gift in his return of income of income. The Assessing Officer assessed the gift as income from other sources. Addition was affirmed by the CIT (A) and also Tribunal.The Assessing Officer levied the penalty on the ground the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and had concealed particulars of its income.According to Assessing Officer, assessment order clearly demonstrated gift to be a sham transaction designed to avoid payment of tax and such findings were relevant evidence in penalty proceedings. Tribunal deleted the levy of penalty. On appeal by the revenue the Court held that since Assessing Officer did not record any findings as to incorrect, erroneous or false return of income filed by assessee and only doubted genuineness of gifts on ground of human probabilities, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was not justified. Followed Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co (1980) 123 ITR 4 (SC)  CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons (1972) 83 ITR 369 (SC)  and Dilip N. Shroff v. CIT (2007)  291 ITR 519 (SC). (AY.  2000-01)