COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. E V BALASHANMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order of the income Tax Appellate Tribunal by formulating the following question of law : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in cancelling the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) even though the assessee 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 ?"

(2.) THE relevant assessment year is 1992-93. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 on 28. 6. 1993 admitting an income of Rs. 7,61,540/ -. A search was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 20. 2. 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 purchases stated to have been not admitted in the disclosure under Section 132 (4) of the said Act in addition to initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the said Act and levied a minimum penalty with reference to such an alleged concealed income.

(3.) ON appeal at the instance of the assessee, the Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) cancelled the entire penalty levied and allowed the appeal. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), an appeal was filed by the Revenue before the Income Tax appellate Tribunal to have the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) set aside. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Not satisfied with that, the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue formulating the above question of law.