On writ the Court held that  the Settlement Commission had not expressed any doubt to disbelieve the explanation furnished by the assessee, as true. The burden on the Revenue authority to establish concealment, remained undischarged. Though the allegation of concealment was made by the Revenue authorities, the assessee did furnish his explanation. Therefore, the Revenue authorities and the Settlement Commission were obligated in law to consider the fact explanation before imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Without disbelieving the explanation furnished on cogent reasons and without reaching the conclusion of concealment on material evidence on record, the assessee did not stand exposed to levy of penalty as a logical fallout of addition sustained in the assessment of income. Merely because addition may be made on the quantum side by invoking section 50C of the Act, that did not itself establish that such estimated consideration had actually passed on to the assessee. The order of penalty was not valid.( AY. 2007-08)