Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. FOR the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 14,394. He was ultimately assessed on an income of Rs. 67,687. The additions included unexplained cash credits in the names of three parties, totalling Rs. 10,500. The difference between the returned and the assessed income being more than 20%, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings. The Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was applicable, but it took the view that the explanation offered by the assessee was no doubt not accepted on the quantum side but that was not the end of the matter. It observed that so long as the explanation is not proved to be false, the onus is on the department for the purpose of penalty to establish by independent evidence that the credits were the income of the assessee. The department has not discharged that onus.

2. IN Rukmani Bahu v. Addl. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 468 (All) and Addl. CIT v. Ram Prakash [1981] 128 ITR 559 (All), this court has emphasised that the explanation given by the assessee for showing that the disputed amount was or was not his income is not relevant. When the Explanation to Section 271(1