2006 (7) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cted on the following considerations: "In this case the assessee could not get any relief in respect of additions of Rs. 3,54,915 except those of Rs. 47,200 added in the name of Shri S.G. Jhaveri and S.C. Jhaveri, Hindu undivided family. She could not prove that the jewellery seized belongs to various people as claimed by her. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) she has not agitated many of the additions against which the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the disclosure could not be said to be full and true. The assessee's case is not covered by section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961." The dissection of the aforesaid operative part of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th Rs. 47,200 as recorded in the impugned order.] (b) the appeal filed by the assessee/petitioner bearing I.T.A. No. 2501/Bom/92 came to be decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench C, vide its order dated May 17, 2006, wherein the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) came to be set aside for the reasons recorded therein. Submissions: Mr. Jhaveri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the subsequent events, the case of the petitioner would be squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of this court in the case of Mrs. Usha A. Kalwani v. S.N. Soni reported in [2005] 272 ITR 67. In his submission, the factual matrix sketched hereinabove demonstrates that the petitioner during pendency of....