https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68001 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for additional income declared during a search, stating that the assessee fulfilled the conditions under Explanation 5 and should not be denied immunity due to a late return filing. The ITAT also agreed with the CIT(A) on the levy of penalty for undisclosed income related to excess jewellery found during the search, emphasizing that non-disclosure in the original return justifies the penalty, even if rectified in a revised return before assessment completion. Both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed. en-us Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:42:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68001 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for additional income declared during a search, stating that the assessee fulfilled the conditions under Explanation 5 and should not be denied immunity due to a late return filing. The ITAT also agreed with the CIT(A) on the levy of penalty for undisclosed income related to excess jewellery found during the search, emphasizing that non-disclosure in the original return justifies the penalty, even if rectified in a revised return before assessment completion. Both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68001