COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MOHAMMAD MOHTRAM FAROOQUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned order of the Tribunal dated September 29, 2000. The cash amounting to Rs. 5,92,340 was seized by the police thana, Sikar, from the appellant on April 8, 1992. A panchnama was drawn by the Income-tax Department on April 9, 1992, and the said cash was requisitioned and taken into 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 his brother, how much amount belongs to his brother-in-law and how much amount belongs to him. On April 9, 1992, the assessee has surrendered the said cash of Rs. 5,92,340 for inclusion in his income for the assessment year 1993-94. The return of income was filed on April 26, 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, if the cash amount of Rs. 5,92,340 which has been seized has been shown in the income, that is not tantamount to voluntary disclosure and he imposed the penalty to the extent of 100 per cent. which has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in appeal.

(3.) THE facts are not in dispute that on April 8, 1992, an amount of Rs. 5,92,340 was seized by the police thana, Sikar, from the assessee-respondent. THE assessee claimed that part of the amount belongs to his brother, brother-in-law and part of the amount belongs to him, but he has not given any detail nor any specific purpose has been shown why he is carrying the amount belonging to his brother and brother-in-law. He has surrendered that amount for taxation by filing of the return. In our view, the income surrendered after that amount has been seized, cannot be said that the assessee has voluntarily disclosed the concealed income.