9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by holding that the case was covered by Expln. 5. 3. The brief facts of the case are that in this case, search under s. 132(4) of the IT Act was carried out on 12th and 13th Jan., 1987 and, the locker of the assessee was searched and opened on 8th March, 1988. During the course of search proceedings, the assessee had declared additional income of Rs. 2,70,000 on account of the cash found during the search. The assessee had declared this income in the statement recorded under s. 132(4) of the IT Act. The AO had levied the penalty with reference to the surrendered amount of Rs. 2,70,000. The AO had levied the penalty for the reasons that the requisite conditions laid down under Explanatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cases of CIT vs. Dilsukh Rai Ranglal (1976) 104 ITR 60 (Ori) and CIT vs. Rawat Singh & Sons 1977 CTR (Raj) 248 : (1979) 120 ITR 65 (Raj). The learned Authorised Representative had also relied upon the case of Vishwa Nath Agarwal vs. Asstt. CIT (2001) 71 TTJ (All) 668 wherein it has been held that benefit of Expln. 5 under s. 271(1)(c) cannot be denied to the assessee on the ground that he had failed to disclose the manner in which the surrendered income was earned by him. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the record. We find that during the course of search, the assessee has declared additional income of Rs. 2,70,000 being cash found in the course of search. The assessee had made surrender under Expln. 5 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds to the manner in which the income was earned. Therefore, for this reason, the benefit of declaration of additional income cannot be denied. We also agree with the view of the learned CIT(A) that the assessee having made the surrender should not be held as not eligible for immunity because of late furnishing of return as cl.(2) under Expln. 5 to s. 271(1)(c) does not contemplate such a view. We also find that cl.(2) under Expln. 5 to s. 271(1)(c) stipulates that such asset had been acquired out of his income which had not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of time specified in sub-s. (1) of s. 139. There is no such condition that return should be furnished under s. 139(1). This clause also cov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of tax. 13. The learned Departmental Representative (IT) invited our attention to assessee's paper book p. 16 wherein the order sheet dt. 13th Feb., 1991 has been reproduced. Hence, the revised return was filed only when the nondisclosure of gold jewellery was pointed out to the assessee by the AO. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the CIT(A). 14. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the record. We find that in this case search under s. 132 of the Act was carried out. The assessee has filed original return on 27th March, 1989, which was subsequently revised on 27th Feb., 1991, including difference on account of the value of jewellery worth Rs. 35,100. After perusal of the reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
