AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 576
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a search under Section 132 of the Act. It was found that 36 Kgs. of silver and about 8 Kgs. of gold was not accounted for, in the books. In the course of proceedings thereunder, explanation offered by the appellant in respect of 36 Kgs of silver, was accepted. However, the explanation offered in respect of gold, as to failure to enter in the stock books, was not accepted. Substantial quantity thereof was seized. In the subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 132 of the Act, the value of the seized gold was treated as income. It is stated that on payment of the tax thereon, the gold was released. The appellant filed regular returns for the assessment year 1986- 87, on 30.09.1986. An order of assessment was passed by treating the val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax v. Gebilal Kanhaialal (2012) 348 ITR 561 (SC), are fulfilled in the instant case. Learned counsel further submits that a clear distinction needs to be maintained between the cases covered by sub-clause (a) of Explanation 5 to Section 271 of the Act, on the one hand, and sub-clause (b) thereof, on the other, in the context of levying penalty under that Section. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 0259. and this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v M/s. Nasa Continental Exports Limited (I.T.T.A.No.96 of 2001) Sri J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the search was conducted in the busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iminal in nature. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindusthan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, alleging that the appellant has concealed details of income and furnished inaccurate particulars. Obviously because the consequences that flow from the proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are drastic, the Parliament made an effort to balance the interest of the State, on the one hand, and the interest of the assessee, on the other by incorporating certain safeguards. In this context, Explanation 5 of Section 271 of the Act, becomes relevant and significant. It reads: Explanation 5: Where in the course of a sea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under his control, has been acquired out of his income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of time specified in sub-section (1) of Section 139, and also specifies in the statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of such income. The provision is in two parts. The first is about the circumstances under which the penalty becomes leviable, covering sub- clauses (a) and (b). The second is the exceptions carved out to it in the form of clauses (1) and (2). Sub-clauses (a) and (b) cover two substantially different situations. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the return of income to be furnished before the expiry of time specified in Section 139(1) of the Act; (2) the assessee has specified in a statement under Section 132(4) of the Act, the manner in which the income stood derived; and (3) the assessee had paid tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such undisclosed income. When these requirements are fitted into the case on hand, the first condition needs slight adjustment, since the appellant had time to file the return for the particular assessment year. To be precise, the search was made on 26.06.1985, and the returns were filed within time, on 30.09.1986. There was no finding at any stage of the proceedings that the acquisition of the seized gold was during any earlier as....