The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal’s order regarding AY’s 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The primary issue was whether the CIT u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act could direct the AO to initiate a penalty for concealment, which was not originally initiated in the assessment order. The Revenue relied on the CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (2005) 142 Taxman 653 (HC), which held that such directions could be given under Section 263. However, the High Court observed the decision, has laying down the correct law, the penalty which could be levied would be calculated on the amount surrendered by the during the course of the survey. The tax on this assuming rate to tax is 33%, will work out to Rs.42,90,000/-. The minimum penalty which could be levied would be 100% of such tax i.e. Rs.42,90,000/- and the maximum penalty would be 300% would be Rs.1,28,70,000/-. Either case, the penalty amount will not exceed Rs.2 Crore, which is the amount prescribed in the CBDT circular dated 17 September 2024 2024) 468 ITR 1 ( St) .  Relied on   PCIT v. Vinodbhai Parekh (2020) 429 ITR 225 (Guj)(HC)  wherein the Court held that  CBDT circulars on tax effect limits also apply to orders u/s. 263 of the Act . Court held that since the tax effect involved was below the prescribed limit as per the CBDT Circular dated 17 September 2024, the appeal being  deemed academic and is  not entertained. However, the High Court kept  open the substantial question of law for future consideration. Appeal of Revenue is dismissed  (ITA NO. 1906 & 2713 of 2018 dated 06/03/2025 ) ( AY. 2010-11, 2011 -12 )