TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lanation-1 to Section 271(1) of the Act will not enure to the case of the appellant – in Shri S. Sathyanarayanan Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2014 (9) TMI 169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the same issue has been decided - the assessee had not offered any explanation either during the assessment proceedings or during the penalty proceedings regarding the unexplained cash deposits - The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent : Mr. T. R. Senthilkumar JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar, J.) The issue raised in the present appeal concerns with the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the original authority against the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07, pursuant to a search operation conducted in the premises of Mr.K.Sunda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Moreover, the said issue had already been considered by us in the assessee's own case in T.C.A.Nos.608 to 613 of 2013 dated 25.8.2014, wherein it has been held as follows:- ''10. In the present case, we find that the assessee had not offered any explanation either during the assessment proceedings or during the penalty proceedings regarding the unexplained cash deposits. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e penalty imposed is minimum that is required under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. We also find that in view of the detection made by the Assessing Officer during the search conducted in the business premises and residential premises of the father of the assessee, the offer of surrender of income was made. Hence, it cannot be said that the surrender of income was voluntary.'' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
