2009 (4) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by F.I. REBELLO, J. - The petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 18thDecember, 1992 in respect of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. We are concerned with the assessment year 1985-86. The assessee had filed return of income for 1985-86 on 1^st October, 1985 which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 271(1)(c) were initiated. After considering thesubmissions, penalty was imposed to the tune of Rs.  6,75,657/. It was contended by the petitioners before the Commissioner in the application under Section 264, that the declaration under Section 132 (4) was made, to cover up some discrepancies consisting of some alleged excess stock and unproved loan creditors amounting to Rs.36.05 lakhs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs.10,65,000/and the interest thereon was liable to be taxed for income for the assessment year 1985-86. In the original return filed by the assessee and also in the subsequent revised return the assessee had not disclosed this income. The concealment of income was detected by the Department during the course of search and seizure action. The assessee had made a declaration under Section 132(4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t jurisdiction in imposing penalty. 8. This is not a case of want of jurisdiction. This is a case where the petitioners were unable to make out that the case fell within Explanation 5 to Section 271(c). The requirement to fall within the explanation is not only admission by the petitioner in his statement, but what has been set out by the Commissioner. The petitioners were further bound to disc....