9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment is objecting to the cancellation of penalty of Rs. 9,28,658 imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1991-92. 2. Briefly stated, the facts concerning imposition of penalty are thus. Search and seizure operations were conducted in the case of the assessee on 26/27th June, 1990, during the course of which certain valuables and documents were seized. In his statement under s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been derived, was not fulfilled. The surrendered amount of Rs. 17,03,119 was held to be the concealed income of the assessee and a penalty of Rs. 9,28,658 was imposed. 3. In appeal, after referring to the facts of the case and arguments of the assessee, learned CIT(A) observed that in his statement under s. 132(4) of the Act, the assessee had disclosed that an amount of Rs. 17,03,119 was earne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) was not satisfied inasmuch as he had not specified the manner in which the surrendered income had been derived. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this assertion was not factually correct. He strongly relied on the order of the learned CIT(A). 5. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w the income which was being surrendered was earned. We fail to understand as to how the surrender could be accepted without raising this question. 5.1 On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that the ground taken by the Department for imposing the penalty is untenable both in law and on facts. Accordingly we hold tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
