Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
6 Penalty : S. 271(1)(c) Explanation 5 of Income-tax Act,
1961 : A. Ys. 1984-85 and 1988-89 : In statement u/s.132(4), assessee admitted
acquisition of asset in A.Y. 1987-88 and offered income of Rs.3,50,000 spread
over 5 years from A.Y. 1984-85 to 1988-89 : Immunity under Explanation 5 should
be granted.
[CIT v. Kanhaiyalal, 214 CTR 611 (Raj.)]
In the course of a search action, in a statement u/s.132(4)
of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee accepted the acquisition of the asset
of value Rs.3,50,000 in the A.Y. 1987-88 and offered the amount to tax spread
over in the A.Ys. 1984-85 to 1988-89. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty
u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and refused to grant immunity under Explanation 5, on
the ground that the whole of the amount should have been offered in the A.Y.
1987-88. The Tribunal deleted the addition and held that the assessee is
entitled to immunity under Explanation 5.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the
decision of the Tribunal and held as under :
“Immunity under Explanation 5 of S. 271(1)(c) is not taken
away for the simple reason that income disclosed by assessee in his statement
u/s.132(4) for a particular year was spread over in the returns of several
years, more so, when the Assessing Officer had also made assessment in
assessment years as returned by the assessee, though after making some quantum
reshuffling.”