TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Balaji Group of Companies in which the assessee was also covered. Subsequent to the search, the assessee filed return of income on 21.4.2008 in which the assessee disclosed income of Rs.23,13,325/- on account of jewellery found at the time of search in addition to other normal income. The AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c). In response to show cause notice issued by AO, assessee submitted that there had been no addition to the total income returned by the assessee and, therefore, there was no concealment of income. It was also submitted that the assessee had not been given copy of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income tax Act. It was further explained that the authorized ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not be expected to disclose the income in the statement unless some query was raised by the authorized officer. CIT(A), therefore asked the AO to give copy of statement under section 132(4) which was provided to the authorized representative of the assessee. The CIT(A) noted from the statement that the assessee had not disclosed the income on account of jewellery though unexplained jewellery had been found and seized. CIT(A) observed that the decision of the Hon'ble High court of Allahabad in the case of CIT vs. Radhakishan (278 ITR 454) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gulabrai V. Gandhi vs. ACIT (84 ITD 370) relied upon by the assessee were distinguishable on the ground that in both the cases the assessee had declared u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The dispute is regarding levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income in relation to unexplained jewellery found at the time of search. In the search conducted on 10.11.2006, unexplained jewellery to the extent of Rs.23,13,325/- had been found and seized. The assessee filed the return of income for the relevant year after search on 21.4.2008 in which the jewellery was declared as undisclosed income. The authorities below have levied penalty in relation to the said undisclosed income on the ground that the assessee had not declared undisclosed income on account of jewellery in the statement recorded under section 132(4) and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of clause 2 to Explanation 5 of section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luntary and not at the insistence of the department. It is an established fact that at the time of search unexplained jewellery of Rs.23,13,325/- had been found and had also been seized. Thus, the assessee at the time of search and at the time of making statement under section 132(4) was aware that the jewellery was unexplained and despite this the assessee had not declared it as undisclosed income. The fact that the assessee was aware that the jewellery was unexplained is also clear from the letter dated 3.10.2008 addressed by the assessee to the AO during the assessment proceedings in which it had been stated that unexplained jewellery valued at Rs.23,13,325/- had been found during the course of search and had been seized. The assessee in....