9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted against the respondent/assessee for non disclosure of the capital account of the minor son as found in the said balance-sheet – penalty as imposed by the AO deleted by CIT(A) and ITAT – held that - The Tribunal while confirming the order passed by the authorities below has noticed that the respondent/assessee during the course of search proceedings itself accepted the concealed income and file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1986, a search operation at the business and residential premises of the respondent/assessee was conducted. Various incriminating documents were found and seized in this search operation. A balance-sheet dated 5th September, 1985 was also found and seized. The said balance-sheet contained capital account in the name of minor son of the partner. An explanation was given to the search party by the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether Hon'ble I.T.A.T. was legally correct in allowing the benefit of the Part (2) of Clause (B) of explanations to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 even before its insertion w.e.f. 10.09.1986 as the search was conducted U/s 132(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.05.1986? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, was the benefit of Explanation 5(b) to Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en before the order under Section 132(5) was passed thereby surrendering the income to the tune of Rs. 22,04,947/-. The income tax in respect of the income was also paid prior to 29th September, 1986. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Radha Kishan Goel, (2005) 278 ITR 454 (All) that no penalty can be levied in the circumstances noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
