AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 still hold good and applicable to the appellant's case. Hence the penalty levied is unjustified. 2. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty shall not be levied ordinarily where the assessee is not at fault of misconduct. The ld Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred by levying penalty on the appellant without any finding/proving anything on record in relation toe additional income. Hence, the penalty levied is uncalled and without any basis. 3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) and the Ld Assessing Officer erred by considering that the appellant fails to fulfill the conditi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 271AAA. 4. The assessee was denied an opportunity to explain the manner in which such income was derived. 5. At the time of oath no professional person was present on behalf of the assessee and it becomes the duty of the Oath Administrator to explain the provision of the law or the consequences of non declaration of certain information. 6. Framing of the questions were not in the scope of the assessee. 7. Assessee has answered only to those questions which were being put in front of her. 8. The assessee is layman whereas Oath Administrator is representing Income Tax Authority and should be very well aware of the provisions of law. However, the Assessing Officer did not find force in her contentions and imposed penalty of `....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment made by the appellant was bona fide, genuine and in accordance to her knowledge of the provisions of law. No opportunity was provided to specify and substantiate the manner in which such income was derived rather questions were not raised at all. 6. The Oath Administrator should have informed the appellant that you have not specified and substantiated the manner in which such income has been derived. Therefore. You could be penalized. 7. The appellant is layman whereas Oath Administrator was representing Income Tax Department and conducting search with many officers. In a way he must be very well aware of the provisions of the law and especially provisions related to search and seizure. 8. Framing of the questions were not in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." 7. The DR stressed on the order of the Assessing Officer and Ld CIT(A) and argued that since the assessee did not disclose the full particulars during her statement u/s 132(4) and also gave conflicting replies during assessment proceedings, the benefit of immunity available in clause (2) of section 271AAA of the Act cannot be given to the assessee. 8. We have heard the submissions of both the rival parties and has gone through the facts of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h such income has been derived and also has paid the tax together with interest in respect of undisclosed income. In the present case the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4). The relevant English version of portion of statement recorded u/s 132(4) is reproduced as under:- "Q.No.3. From your place hand written paper attached at page No.40 annexure A-8 is found. On this paper `.2.30 crore is being paid for one school at Jaipur. Please provide the details? Ans. I accept the details mentioned on the paper. Q.No.4. Please inform whether you have declared this amount in your income tax return or not? Ans. This amount I have not shown in my income tax return but now I voluntarily declare this `.2.30 crore and pay tax with a bel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty granted to assessee under clause (2) of section 271AAA. 11. The clause (2) of explanation 5 of section 271(1)( c) has fallen for consideration before various Hon'ble High Courts. The scope and meaning has been lucidly explained by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Radha Kishan Goel (2005) 278 ITR 454. The relevant portion of observations of Hon'ble High Court are as under:- "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation . ....