AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....following grounds of appeal: "i). That the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals 5) Ludhiana has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on account of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 without considering the provision of Income Tax, written submission and various judgments on the same issue. ii) That it is prayed that the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal 5) Ludhiana, may kindly be set aside and penalty so levied by the AO may kindly be deleted. ii) That the appellant craves to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed of." 3. The only issue in the present appeal relates to imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the same the matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) where the assessee filed written submissions, reproduced at para 2.1 of his order. Briefly put, the assessee contended that the penalty was not leviable since the assessee had not concealed the particulars of income while furnishing the return for the year under consideration and had also deposited taxes due thereon. The assessee contended that the nature of the surrender had also been disclosed to the Assessing Officer. The assessee further contended that the amount had been surrendered to buy peace of mind. The assessee further relied upon a number of decisions which are reproduced in the order of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) after considering assessee's submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar is A.Y 2005 06. * The original return u/s 139(1) was filed by the assessee on 21.3.2006 declaring income of Rs. 1,52,180/-. * That search was conducted on 11.9.2007. * That the income of Rs. 18 lacs was surrendered in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act on 11.3.2009 . 9. The relevant provisions of section 271(1)(c) which are attracted in the present case are Explanation-5A to section 271(1)(c), since search was conducted on 11.09.2007 i.e. after 1st day of June 2007, and the same are reproduced hereunder: Explanation 5A.--Where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of,-- (i) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2007. b) in the course of search the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any income based on any entry in any books of account or other documents or transactions. c) the assessee claims that such assets or entries are attributable or represent his income for any previous year which had ended before the date of search. d) and such income is not disclosed in the return of income filed before the date of search. 11. The facts as outlined in the above case demonstrate that on account of search conducted on 11-09 07,documents were seized which showed that the assessee was found to have given advance of Rs. 6 lacs for purchase of two flats in the su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, search took place before 01.06.2007. Therefore, Explanation-5 to section 271(1)(c) was applicable in those cases and not Explanation-5A.Both the Explanations are para materia to the extent that they deem assessees to have concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income if in the course of search they are found to be owners of assets claimed to have been acquired from earlier years income, which has not been disclosed in the return of income filed for that year.The one major difference between the two explanations ,other than their scope covering search initiated before and after 01-06-07 respectively,is that while Explanation 5 is applicable vis a vis only assets,as referred to in the section) found during search,Explanation 5A a....