Allowing the appeals the Court held that ,  one more opportunity was to be granted to the assessee to reconcile by offering an explanation. The Tribunal was wrong in dismissing the applications merely because the quantum assessment had attained finality and that the assessee had not challenged such assessment. The quantum assessment and penalty proceedings were independent of each other. The assessee’s specific case was that the jewellery, recovered during the search operations under section 132 , had been declared in the Scheme of 1997 and the assessee had explained that the balance amounts were inherited by her, some of which were stridhana, etc. The Tribunal had considered a similar issue in the case of another assessee of the same group in proceedings arising out of the same search and permitted reconciliation. There was no reason why such an indulgence should not be granted to the assessee considering the plea raised by her in the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous petition. The explanation offered by the assessee should be tested for its correctness and only if it was found to be palpably false or not acceptable, would the question of imposing penalty arise. The rights of the assessee could not be foreclosed. (AY. 2012-13)