TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring his income at Rs. 2,313 and the same was accepted under s. 143(1) of the IT Act by the AO. However, on 4th March, 1986, a search under s. 132 of the IT Act was conducted at the business and residential premises of the appellant. The case was reopened under s. 147(a) and during the course of such proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed the order of the AO. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri N.M. Ranka argued that the assessee had agreed for the inclusion of an amount of Rs. 50,000 in his income with prominent object to buy peace and, therefore, the penalty cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this was assessee's concealed income and, therefore, the penalty was rightly imposed by the AO. 5. From the submissions and the letter of the assessee, dt. 27th July, 1989, submitted before the Asstt. CIT, we find that the assessee agreed to surrender the additional income by incorporating the same in the revised return and the same was regularised under s. 148. It is also apparent that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regularised under s. 148 and that there were no other additions, supplements the contention of the assessee that the amount was surrendered subject to conditions. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that revised return in the present case was not filed consequent upon the detection of any concealment. The additions made solely on the basis of admission does not amount to concealment. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
