TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (4) TMI 577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment year 1989-90. Brief facts of the case are that a search was conducted at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee-respondent ('assessee') on 30-8-1988 and during the course of which cash, jewellery and other valuable articles and things were found and seized. The assessment was completed on an income of ₹ 17,68,000, which included unexplained cash of ₹ 1,30,000, unexplained jewellery of ₹ 15,67,981, unexplained investment in pawned articles of ₹ 60,900, unexplained investment to advance debtors amounting to ₹ 4,169. During the search and seizure proceedings, the assessee had declared his income and had also moved application for settlement before the ld. CIR, Kanpur. Consequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... calculation by the department. The very fact that the assessee and its group had made an application before the learned CIT (Appeals) during the proceedings on 11-1-1989 and in para 5 of the said application, it stressed that the petitioners had voluntarily in good faith and bona fide, declared income under section 132(4) to purchase peace with the Department and also to cut short protracted litigation and in order to co-operate and assist in quick disposal of settlement proceedings. The assessee on 27-12-1989 had further moved an application that the assessee before the conclusion of search, i.e., operation of locker, a further sum of ₹ 1,90,166 was surrendered and thereby making a total, surrendered at ₹ 18,90,166, as the the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts are covered by our own decision in the case of Radha Krishna Goel, copy of which has been filed in the compilation at pages 34 to 46 and which has also been relied upon by the learned CIT(A), are covered. In the said decision, we have discussed at length that the surrender made in the statement under section 132(4) under similar circumstances, covers the provisions of Explanation 5(2) of section 271(1)(c). In that case too, the facts were practically identical. We, therefore, for the sake of brevity, avoid repeating the entire reasoning and the discussion made by us and adoption the same here, we hold that the application of Explanation 5(2) of section 271(1)(c) were fully complied and thereby the assessee was entitled to the conces....