TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is revenue's appeal arises out of order of CIT(A)-II, Ahmedabad, order dated 04.11.2009 for assessment year 2007-08. The effective ground of appeal is as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A)-II, Ahmedbad has erred in deleting the penalty of ₹ 24,85,623/- levied U/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. The first ground of appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred the explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in his order and he deems the assessee as an offender and liable to panel action under this explanation. The benefit of explanation 5 cannot be given to the assessee because there was no disclosure on the basis of any money, bullion, jewellary or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under his control during search u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment 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 vs Mishrimal Soni reported in 162 Taxman 53, there is no distinction between tangible assets or intangible assets in respect of clause(2) of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the disclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have perused the penalty order and appeal order of the ld. CIT(A). It is evident that return of income has been accepted as such by the A.O. No addition has been made on account of incriminating documents found during the course of search. The assessee had disclosed ₹ 75,00,000/- u/s 132(4) of the I.T.Act. The ld. CIT(A) has also considered tangibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
