2015 (5) TMI 317

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has come up in appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, it appears that the undisputed facts are as follows : A search was conducted on February 3, 2009. During the search, the assessee disclosed certain facts which have been recorded in the order of the appellate authority, which reads as follows :             "The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 was con ducted at the premises of the assessee on February 3, 2009. In course of search, the assessee made voluntary disclosure under section 132(4) disclosing a sum of Rs. 6 crores even though no incriminating document sugge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ispute that for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee had earlier filed his return in which the aforesaid sum of Rs. 70,00,000 was not disclosed. The case of the assessee, as such, came squarely within the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer passed an order of penalty, as indicated earlier, which was affirmed by the appellate authority. The Tribunal interfered with the order of the appellate authority on the basis of a judgment of the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in the case of ITO v. Gope M. Rochalani. The aforesaid judgment, Mr. Khaitan submitted, has to be read in conjunction with clause (b) of Explanation 5A to section 271(1), which provides as follows :      &nbs....