9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertain to assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06 and ITA Nos 48 & 52/PN/11 relate to Indermal Lekhraj Jain (HUF) for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2005-06 respectively. 3. In all the appeals, the grievance is arising from the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Central, Pune dated 29.10.2010, whereby penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") has been sustained. Before us, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the facts and circumstances leading to the levy of penalty in all the appeals stands on an identical footing. Therefore, we may refer to the fact-position as emerging in the case of Shri Indermal Lekhraj Jain (individual) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and was hitherto not declared in the original return of income filed for the stated assessment year under section139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs 3,16,100/- was imposed by the Assessing Officer, which was carried in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 5. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had erred in imposing the penalty. According to the assessee, he had declared additional income in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and the same was adhered to while filing the return of income under section 153A of the Act and income has been assessed as such in the subsequent assessment proceedings. The assessee canvassed before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal in a subsequent decision in the case of DCIT v. Omkareshwar R Kalantri & Ors 42 DTR (Pune)(Trib) 489. As per the learned Counsel, the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision upheld the proposition that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable on the difference between income returned in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act and, in this regard, it was imperative to examine as to whether the conditions laid down under Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act have been fulfilled or not. The learned Counsel conceded that in view of the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Omkareshwar R Kalantri & Ors (supra), t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the expiry of time specified in 139(1); and also specifies in the statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest on such income. The appellant has stated that since he has made the declaration u/s 132(4), and paid taxes on it, he is entitled to benefit of immunity under clause (2) of Explanation 5 to sec. 271(1)(c). It is also argued that the benefit under clause (2) is available to the declarations made for the year of search and also for earlier years, and for this proposition, appellant relied on the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 266 ITR 175. The claim of the appellant is not tenable in law. The words "income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
