TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act, when the disclosed income did not pertain to any money, bullion or valuation found during the course of search. ii) The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in agreeing that the assessee satisfy all the conditions stipulated in Explanation 5 below Section 271(1)(c) without appreciating the fact that the disclosure is made though statement recorded u/s.133A on 15/11/2006 and not in the statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the IT Act (copy enclosed as AnnexureA) iii) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that even if the manner of income is not explained, assessee is entitled for availing immunity under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as per decision in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah 299 ITR 305 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ke of convenience. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for AY 2007-08 was framed vide order dated 18/12/2008, assessing total income of Rs.11,10,400/-. While finalizing the assessment order, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated in respect of undisclosed income. In the penalty proceedings, the assessee made various submissions before the Assessing Officer, who after considering the submissions, levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A)-II Ahmedabad, who after considering the submissions, delete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch in his statement u/s.132(4) of the Act and offered it as income in the return and also paid the tax. He has also given a finding on fact that the returned income was accepted. Therefore, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Mishrimal Soni reported at 162 Taxman 53 and also the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C.Shah reported at 299 ITR 305 (Guj.), deleted the penalty. The Revenue has made submissions that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in granting exemption under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act when the disclosed income did not pertain to money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found during the course of search. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....munity from penalty for concealment. The Hon'ble High Court after observing the contention of the Revenue held that the contentions raised on behalf of the Revenue are not required to be accepted for the simple reason that in the first instance, there is no prescription as to the point of time when the tax has to be paid qua the amount of income declared in the statement made under section1 132(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was justified in holding that there would be sufficient compliance with the provision if tax is shown to have been paid before the assessment was completed. The Hon'ble High Court further held that in so far as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act regar....