TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2008 for AY 2003-04 were that a search u/s.132 was carried out on the group of SOHAM on 10.5.2006. The AO has also noted that in response to a notice u/s.153A of the Act, a return was filed declaring total income of Rs.16,53,070/-. The impugned assessment has also been completed on the figure of the said returned income. 2.1. While levying the penalty u/s.271(1)(c), it was held that although the income was offered in the return of income, but it was only after the search was conducted. The assessee has introduced unaccounted cash which was detected during the course of search. According to AO, the assessee had not admitted any income in his statement recorded, nor he has specified the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s incumbent upon the authorized office to explain the provisions of Explanation 5 in its entirety to the assessee concerned and the authorized officer cannot stop short a at particular stage so as to permit the Revenue to take advantage of such a lapse in the statement. It also felt that when the statement is recorded in Question / answer form, there would be no occasion for an assessee to state and make averments in the exact format stipulated by the provisions, considering the setting in which such statement is being recorded, as noted by the Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Radhakishan Goyal [2005] 278 ITR 454. Secondly considering the social environment it is not possible to expect from an assessee, whether literate or illiterate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atement u/s.132(4) had admitted to undisclosed income and explained its source and offered to pay tax (paid subsequently). Thus on a holistic consideration of the contentions/submissions/details/judicial decisions, it is held that the benefit of Explanation 5(2) to s.271(1)(c) cannot be denied to the appellant. In these facts and circumstances the penalty imposed by the AO for the aforementioned assessment years is not sustainable. It is therefore cancelled." 4. At the outset, we have been informed that even for AY 2006- 07 in an identical manner, penalty was levied, however it was deleted on the same lines as it was deleted for AY 2003-04. 5. Now before us, a decision of ITAT "A" Bench Ahmedabad pronounced in the case of Shri Prabhud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide paragraph No.5 the Respected Coordinate Bench has deleted the penalty as follows:- "5. Ld.D.R. could not point out any difference in the facts in the present case and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present case. Moreover, before Ld.CIT(A), reliance was placed by the Ld.A.R. on the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of Suresh Chandra Bansal as reported in 223 CTR 128 (Cal.) and the relevant portion of the judgment has been reproduced by Ld.CIT(A) on page 4 of his order. As per the same, if the additional income offered by the assessee in the revised return u/s.153A, after the search had been accepted in its entirety without detailed discussion of the seized documents and w....