TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s surrendered during the course of search as well as additions made during the course of assessment. Facts in brief are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of developing, building and construction activities. During the course of search action u/s.132 in Summer Group of cases including the assessee's office premises at Chandivali Farms, MBC Studio Road, Off Saki Vihar Road, Kalyan Quarry Kadan, Mumbai-400072. The assessee has disclosed a sum of Rs. 67,04,500/-. Thereafter notice u/s.153A was issued and assessment was completed u/s.143(3), wherein the AO found that pages 1 to 65 of Annexure-A/1 were impounded on 06.11.2006. The assessee offered Rs. 51,54,000/- as unaccounted compensation paid to tenants of the assessee's site a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) r.w.s.147 of I.T.Act. 4. By the impugned order the CIT(A) deleted the penalty with respect to the income offered during the course of search, which was incorporated in the return of income filed in pursuance to the notice u/s.153A after having the following observations :- 1.22 The appellant has disclosed this income in the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153A on 20.09.2007 and paid taxes on this income before filing of the return. The appellant has submitted that Shri Ramesh Shah, Partner of the firm had made the statement u/s. 132(4) of the Income Tax Act on 07.11.2006 that all the assets as stated had been acquired out of the income which had not been disclosed so far in the return of income to be furnished before the exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, the assessee is not to be regarded as having concealed his income. While clauses (a) and (b) makes a clear distinction between the previous year which has ended before the date of the search and a previous year which is to end on or after the date of the search, para (2) in explanation 5 does not make any such distinction. It refers to the statement given by the assessee at the time of the search under section 132(4) with regard to the assets found at the time of search being the statement to the effect that such assets have been acquired out of his undisclosed income and the specification by the assessee in such statement with regard to the manner in which such income had been derived; and the subsequent payment by the assessee of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure of the proviso to this Explanation, have to be read in line therewith, and, therefore, if the disclosure of the asset has been made, then the assessee cannot be prohibited from showing that the income related to anyone or more of the previous years before the date of the search, at the pain of the immunity conferred by sub-clause (2) of Explanation 5 being taken away. They have also held at page 29 of the said ITR as follows:- "Examining the present case from that stand point it is clear, that the assessing authority has made assessment for the five assessment years, and instead of believing the returns filed by the assessee, the assessing authority, as a fact, had found the income to be relating to different assessment years, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplanation 5 of Section 271(1)(c) of the income tax act. 1.28 In view of the above fact, it is clear that the appellant fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) for availing immunity for levy of penalty. Therefore,' the. Assessing Officer is not justified in levy of penalty in respect of income surrendered amounting to Rs. 67,04,500/-. The Assessing Officer is directed to cancel the penalty on the income of Rs. 67,04,500/-. 5. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of authorities below and found that categorical finding has been recorded by CIT(A) to the effect that assessee has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) for availi....