TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such income person wise or firm wise citing the reason of sealing of the bank locker. In our opinion, this would not be of much relevance. Firstly as noted, the answer was in sufficient compliance of requirement of manner of earning income. Secondly, as recorded by the CIT (A), AO had made additions taxing the admitted amounts in respective hands. We are primarily of the view that there is substantial compliance by the assessee. We do not see any reason to disturb the Tribunal's order, however, for the reasons somewhat different from those recorded by the Tribunal. The addition outside of the disclosures by the assessee are not significant. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1150 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 17-9-2018 - MR AKIL KURESHI AND MR B.N. KAR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mukesh Ramanlal Prajapati dated 24.07.2007 in Tax Appeal No. 434 of 2017. 3. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Revenue officials had paused a specific query to Shri Rajendra Shah, partner of the firm asking him to elaborate on the details of undisclosed income of ₹ 35 crores and how it is earned by you and your group. In his opinion thus, this is not a case where the Assessing Officer had not raised the query. The judgement of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahendra C. Shah (supra) therefore would not apply. The Tribunal committed an error in coming to the contrary conclusion. His second contention was that in any case, during the course of assessment, the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er literate or illiterate, to be specific and to the point regarding the conditions stipulated by Exception No.2 while making statement under Section 132(4) of the Act. The view taken by the Tribunal as well as Allahabad High Court to the effect that even if the statement does not specify the manner in which the income is derived, if the income is declared and tax thereon paid, there would be substantial compliance not warranting any further denial of the benefit under Exception No.2 in Explanation 5 is commendable. 5. In case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mukesh Ramanlal Prajapati ( supra) Division Bench of this Court had, after referring to the judgement in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahendra C. Shah ( su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licits a response from the assesse's this requirement, the assessee's responsibility to substantiate the manner of deriving such income would commence. When the base requirement itself fails, the question of denying the benefit of no penalty would not arise. 6. In the present case however, as noted, counsel for the Revenue desired to make a slight distinction. In his opinion, this was not a case where no queries were raised by the Assessing Officer during the process of recording a statement of the assessee under section 132(4) of the Act. In this context, we may note that one of the questions put to a partner of the firm was kindly elaborate on the details of undisclosed income of ₹ 34 crores and how it is earned by yo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
