( 1 ) IN compliance with the direction of this court, at the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench a (hereafter "the tribunal") has drawn up a statement of the case and referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:

"1. Having regard to the circumstances in which the Tribunal itself in the quantum appeal had confirmed an addition of Rs. 30,000 for unexplained investment in property, whether the income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee could not be deemed to have concealed the particulars of its income in terms of the Explanation to Section 271 (1)?

( 2 )

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the penalty imposed upon the assessee in terms of the explanation, to Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"

2. The assessee, Mangahen Mohanlal, a HUF, was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Boora and Batasa. It had also income from sale of controlled sugar. For the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee disclosed its income at Rs. 10,737. During