CIT Vs. MOHD MOHTRAM FAROOQUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 29 -9 -2000. The cash amounting to Rs. 5,92,340 was seized by Police Thana, Sikar, from the appellant on 8 -4 -1992. A Panchnama was drawn by the Income Tax Department on 9 -4 -1992, and the said cash was requisitioned and taken in possession. Consequent to the seizure, the statement of the appellant was recorded by the Deputy Director of Investigation, Jaipur, wherein the assessee has stated that the cash belongs to his brother, brother -in -law and some cash belonging to him. The assessee could not give details how much amount belongs to this brother, how much amount belongs to his brother -in -law and how much amount belongs to him. On 9 -4 -1992, the assessee has surrendered the said cash of Rs. 5,92,340 for inclusion in his income for assessment year 1993 -94. The return of income was filed on 26 -4 -1993, declaring the income of Rs. 6,09,620. This includes the seized cash of Rs. 5,92,340. The assessment was completed and the income was assessed at Rs. 6,13,940 as against the income of Rs. 17,280 declared by the assessee in the original return.

(2.) THE part of the income on account of concealment which was later on disclosed in the return and assessed, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) have been initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The case of the assessee was that he disclosed the concealed income voluntarily, i.e., Rs. 5,92,340, therefore, no penalty is leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He is not satisfied with the explanation given. In his view, when the income has been shown in the revised return. that has been shown after seizure, therefore, the cash amount of Rs. 5,92,340 which has been seized. If that has been shown in the income, that does not tantamount to voluntary disclosure and he imposed the penalty to the extent of 100 per cent which has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has taken the view that assessee has filed the return voluntarily before receipt of the notice from the Income Tax Department and when the cash which was found by the police has been surrendered for tax, no penalty for concealment of income should be imposed on these facts. The Tribunal has also taken the view that when the brother, brother -in -law of the assessee have not been examined, penalty should not be imposed.

(3.) MR . Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that assessee has shown the concealed income after seizure not prior to that and when he himself has surrendered it for taxation, it amounts to admission of guilt and after amendment in the section 271(1)(c), the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali : [1970]76ITR696(SC) . does not help the assessee.