Principal Commissioner Of Income Tex vs Protap Properties Limited

The Court :- The question sought to be raised in this appeal is as to the operation of the second exception to Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961. There is no dispute that an undisclosed income was discovered in course of search operations following which the assessee

made a disclosure statement under Section 132(4) of the Act and paid tax on the undisclosed income together with interest thereon. The assessee

offered the undisclosed income in the returns filed in response to the notice received under Section 153C of the Act.

Despite the payment of tax on the undisclosed income, the assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and

imposed a penalty equal to the tax on the undisclosed income.

In the assessee’s appeal under Section 250 of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the case fell within the second exception to

Explanation 5 to Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. As a consequence, the Commissioner set aside the penalty order. The Revenue carried the order of

the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Appellate Tribunal which endorsed the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Under the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. In any event, the Appellate Tribunal has relied on an order of this Court in similar

circumstances which interpreted the second exception and the expression “to be furnishedâ€​ used therein to imply “required to be furnishedâ€​.

In view of the concurrent findings of both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal that the conditions under the second exception to

the relevant Explanation had been complied with, the matter does not call for any reconsideration.ITAT 398 of 2016 and GA No. 297 of 2017 are

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.