TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with Mr. Arun D. Nagarjun for the Petitioners. Mr. A.S. Shivsharan, for the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by F.I. REBELLO, J. - The petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 18thDecember, 1992 in respect of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. We are concerned with the assessment year 1985-86. The assessee had filed return of income for 1985-86 on 1 st October, 1985 which was subsequently revised. 2. Action under Section 133A was conducted on 30th June, 1987 at office and factory premises of assessee. The same was converted into search and seizure action. In the course of search and seizure action, apart from undisclosed stock, havala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Commissioner of Income Tax after considering the contentions observed that the petitioner had accepted the order of C.I.T. (A) for assessment year 1985-86. It was further observed that it cannot be disputed that the loan of Rs.10,65,000/and the interest thereon was liable to be taxed for income for the assessment year 1985-86. In the original return filed by the assessee and also in the subsequent revised return the assessee had not disclosed this income. The concealment of income was detected by the Department during the course of search and seizure action. The assessee had made a declaration under Section 132(4) but it does not entitle the petitioners to immunity from the penal provisions. 6. Penalty, could be waived if the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Radha Kishan Goel , 278 ITR 254 (Allahabad) and some other judgments which we need not go through. 9. The Commissioner has recorded a finding of fact that the transactions were disclosed in the course of search. The income was in respect of assessment year 1985-86. The search was conducted on 30 th June, 1987. Apart from that the Commissioner noted that neither in the original return nor in the revised return the petitioner had disclosed the income. It was, therefore, a clear case of concealment of income. In so far as the issue pertaining to Explanation 5, as we have earlier pointed out the petitioner did not disclose the manner in which such income had been derived. 10. Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
