Case Law Details
Mukesh D. Manglani Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
The penalty in the case on hand was levied under explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A plain reading of the provisions reveals that the penalty shall be levied if the assessee in the course of such initiated under section 132 of the Act was found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or there is some income based on the entry in the books of accounts/documents. Then, it shall be presumed that the assessee has either concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However in the case on hand, we note that there is no such allegation made by the authorities below as discussed above.
Thus, it is transpired that the assessee has disclosed additional income in the return issued under section 153A of the Act voluntarily and without having found any income by the Revenue in the manner provided under explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As such, there was not found any undisclosed income by the Revenue in the course of such conducted under section 132 of the Act.
Similarly, there was also no mentioned of any incriminating document in relation to the addition of Rs. 3,77,790.00 on the basis of which the addition was made by the Revenue. Thus, it is inferred that such addition was not based on the document found during the course of search.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
