TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not entitled to the immunity provided under section 132(4) read with Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c), since the disclosure made was not full and true?" The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 on June 28, 1993, admitting an income of Rs. 7,61,540. A search was conducted under section 132 of the Income-tax Act on February 20,1992, and in that, the assessee declared the additional income purported to be under section 132(4) of the said Act, which was included in the income returned. The assessment was finalised by the Assessing Officer accepting the additional income offered. However, he made a further addition of Rs. 1,08,000 towards difference in value of gold p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been acquired by him by utilising (wholly or in part) his income, notwithstanding that such income is declared by him in any return of income furnished on or after the date of the search, he shall, for the purposes of imposition of a penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of this section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Hence, the deletion of the penalty by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is against the statutory provision. We have heard learned counsel and perused the materials on record. It is true that Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the said Act provides as stated above and contended by le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Shri Vairavelu, jeweller, which is spontaneous and not fabricated one and thereby accepted the explanation offered by the assessee in respect of the investment in the jewellery. The Tribunal also gave a factual finding that out of 50 sovereigns, 12 sovereigns were old, which were given to the assessee 10 months prior to the marriage of his daughter performed on December 11, 1991, i.e., in February 1991. The amount offered in a sum of Rs. 1,08,000 has also been accepted as only for purchase of peace by the assessee and to avoid litigation. The opinion so formed definitely comes within the purview of the said provision. Clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the said Act categorically states that the statements made during t....