9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the assessee had offered the undisclosed income in a separate letter filed to the Department on 02.08.2006 and not in his statement recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act during the course of search on 31.05.2006 ?" The issue pertains to deletion of penalty of a sum of Rs. 50,49,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer. Brief facts are that the respondentassessee was subjected to search operation. Shortly after the search, the assessee in a letter to the Department admitted unaccounted income of Rs. 1.50 Crores and sought exemption from penalty under Section 132 (4) of the Act read with Explanation 5 to Section 271[1](c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 {"the Act" for short}. The Assessing Officer did not grant such immunity from penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement u/s. 132 (4) of the I.T Act and offered it as income in the return and also paid the tax. The returned income was accepted. As per decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mishrimal Soni, reported in 162 Taxmann 53, there is no distinction between tangible assets in respect of clause (2) of Explanation 5 to Section 271 [1](c) of the Act and the disclosure on the basis of entries in the document is also covered. Further, as per decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah reported in 172 Taxman 58, the immunity is granted to the appellant under Explanation 5 to Section 271 [1](c) of the I.T Act even if the manner is not specified in the statement u/s. 132 (4) of the Act. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of his income which has not been disclosed and also specifies in the statement, the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest in respect of such income. From the judgment of the Tribunal, it emerges that the sole objection of the Revenue was that the requirement of clause (2) of the later portion of Explanation 5 viz., ..the manner in which such income has been derived, was not disclosed. In this context, the Tribunal relied on the decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahendra C. Shah, reported in [2008] 299 ITR 305, in which, the Court held as under : " 15. In so far as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under section 132 (4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
