- (1.) The appeal is directed against an order dated April 30, 2014, by which the learned Tribunal allowed an appeal preferred by the assessee challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) affirming the order of penalty passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has come up in appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, it appears that the undisputed facts are as follows:
(2.) A search was conducted on February 3, 2009. During the search, the assessee disclosed certain facts which have been recorded in the order of the appellate authority, which reads as follows: "The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 was conducted at the premises of the assessee on February 3, 2009. In course of search, the assessee made voluntary disclosure under section 132(4) disclosing a sum of Rs. 6 crores even though no incriminating document suggesting any such undisclosed income was found. The said disclosure, as per the said deposition of the assessee recorded under section 131 was bifurcated into 3 persons, i.e., of Rs. 3,50,00,000 was disclosed in the name of the assessee, Rs. 2,25,00,000 was disclosed in the name of the assessee's wife, Smt. Rajshree Dugor, and Rs. 25,00,000 was disclosed in the name of the limited company, viz., Indian Gem and Jewellery (Imperial) Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee had substantial interest. It may be repeated that no concealed income was established from any of the papers and documents found in the course of search in the panchnama of the assessee or in other panchnamas. The entire disclosure was made voluntarily and in good faith which is apparent from question and answer No. 22 in the statement recorded under section 131 wherein the assessee categorically states that he is voluntarily disclosing the income even though no incriminating documents have been found and all the purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs. 3.50 lakhs in two parts, i.e., Rs. 70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs. 2.80 lakhs for the assessment year 2009-10."
(3.) On the basis of the disclosure, the assessee filed a return on March 31, 2010, offering a sum of Rs. 70,00,000 for taxation earned during the assessment year 2008-09. It is not in dispute that for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee had earlier filed his return in which the aforesaid sum of Rs. 70,00,000 was not disclosed. The case of the assessee, as such, came squarely within the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.;