TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion of the officer, is acceptable and there is no question of imposition of penalty. – no infirmity in Tribunal’s or CIT (A)’s order - there is no question of law, much less, substantial question of law in this appeal, which requires reconsideration - - - - - Dated:- 14-12-2005 - Judge(s) : K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN., P. P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by K. Raviraja Pandian J.-The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by formulating the following question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Not satisfied with that, the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue formulating the above question of law. It is contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act, if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, the Assessing Officer may direct such person to pay by way of penalty. He further referred to Explanation 5 of the above said provision, which provides that where in the course of a search under section 132, the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the reasoning given by the assessee and had come to the conclusion, after considering the reply filed during the course of penalty proceedings as well as the statements of Shri Vairavelu, Proprietor, Anitha Jewellery, the assessee and his wife, Smt. B. Krishnaveni, that the explanation offered by them would come within the purview of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the said Act on the premise that the disclosure is true and correct and the immunity provided under Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the said Act is available to the assessee. In res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
