https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3705 HC held for the assessee: because a declaration about undisclosed income (value of diamonds) was made before the return due date under Section 139(1), the deeming provision of Explanation 5( Exception No.2) precluded penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Post-search disclosure in a later return did not negate the pre-search declaration requirement. Deficiencies in a Section 132(4) statement did not defeat immunity where the assessee declared the income and paid tax; the Tribunal's finding of substantial compliance and exemption from penalty was upheld, answering the reference in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2025 10:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3705 HC held for the assessee: because a declaration about undisclosed income (value of diamonds) was made before the return due date under Section 139(1), the deeming provision of Explanation 5( Exception No.2) precluded penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Post-search disclosure in a later return did not negate the pre-search declaration requirement. Deficiencies in a Section 132(4) statement did not defeat immunity where the assessee declared the income and paid tax; the Tribunal's finding of substantial compliance and exemption from penalty was upheld, answering the reference in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3705