in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable on the assessee for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Undisputedly, penalty has been levied on the addition made to the income of the assessee of receipts attributable to difference of TDS reflected in Form No. 26AS and that of which credit was taken by the assessee in its return of income, holding it to be unaccounted receipts of the assessee. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, the claim of the assessee always, during assessment proceedings, penalty proceedings and even appellate proceedings, was that the difference was only of TDS and there was no unaccounted receipts relating to the same. The assessee ,we find had also explained the reason for the difference in TDS as being TDS of disputed billings not taken credit of in the return of income. The assessee had also filed all details of the impugned receipts and the TDS relating to the same, pointing out that all the bills had been accounted for in the books of the assessee. The letters filed during assessment proceedings and the submissions made before the CIT(A) duly confirm the aforesaid facts. The Revenue has not controverted the above facts. In such circumstances, we concur with the learned counsel for the assessee that due explanation had been given by the assessee for the difference in TDS. Therefore, merely because the assessee agreed to the said addition does not upturn the facts of the case to make it a case of concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. For the same reason, that the assessee had a valid uncontroverted explanation for the difference in TDS, we cannot agree with the learned CIT(A) that the assessee had surrendered the income on being detected by the AO. In fact, we hold, that it is not a case of agreeing to the addition of any concealed income but merely of agreeing to the addition to avoid litigation, as contended by the assessee. The decision relied upon by the Revenue in the case of MAK Data (supra) therefore does not apply to the facts of the present case, since there is no surrender of income in the present case after detection as in the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MAK Data (supra). We are also not in agreement with the contention of the Revenue that the assessee cannot at this juncture furnish any explanation having once agreed to the addition. Firstly, as noted above by us the assessee has not offered any new explanation but has only furnished details of its explanation in appellate proceedings. The assessee had always maintained that the difference was only of TDS credit and not of receipts attributable to the difference. Further, it is settled position of law that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are distinct and separate, and the assessee can furnish all evidence and explanation hitherto not furnished in the quantum proceedings in the penalty proceedings.