[Asst. CIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF (2012) 348 ITR 561 (SC)]
Search and seizure operation were carried out during the period 29-7-1987 to 1-8-1987 at the residential/business premises of the assessee HUF, represented by the Karta, Shri Kalyanmal Karva. Assets worth Rs.48,32,000 besides incriminating documents were seized. On 1-8-1987, the Karta while surrendering the amount made a statement u/s. 132(4). The return of income for the assessment year 1987-88 which was required to be filed u/s.139(1) on or before 31-7-1987 was not filed. Pursuant to notices issued u/s.142(1)(ii) in December 1988, the assessee on 16-2-1990 furnished required information including statement of all assets and liabilities whether included in the accounts or not. In the said statement, the said Karta reiterated his earlier statement of concealment. The Department denied the immunity under clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1) (c) mainly for the reason that the assessee had failed to file his return of income on or before 31-7-1987 and had failed to pay the tax thereon.
The Supreme Court observed that Explanation 5 is a deeming provision. It provides that where, in the course of search u/s. 132, that assessee is found to be the owner of unaccounted assets and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilising, wholly or partly, his income for any previous year which has ended before the date of search or which is to end on or after the date of search, then, in such a situation, notwithstanding that such income is declared by him in any return of income furnished on or after the date of search, he shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income for the purposes of imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). The only exception to such a deeming provision or to such a presumption of concealment is given in sub-clause (1) and (2) of Explanation 5. Three conditions have got to be satisfied by the assessee for claiming immunity from payment of penalty under clause (2) of Explanation 5 of section 271(1)(c). The first condition was that the assessee must make a statement u/s. 132(4) in the course of search, stating that the unaccounted assets and incriminating documents found from his possession during the search have been acquired out of his income, which has not been disclosed in the return of income to be furnished before expiry of time specified in section 139(1). Such statement was made by the karta during the search which concluded on 1st August, 1987. It was not in dispute that condition No.1 was fulfilled. The second conditions for availing of the immunity from penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was that the assessee should specify, in his statement u/s. 132(4), the manner in which such income stood derived. Admittedly, the second condition, in the present case also stood satisfied. According to the Department, the assessee was not entitled to immunity under clause (2) as he did not satisfy the third condition for availing of the benefit of waiver of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to file his return of income on 31st July, 1987, and pay tax thereon particularly when the assessee conceded on 1st August, 1987 that there was concealment of income.
The Supreme Court held that the third condition under clause (2) was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such undisclosed income. However, no time limit for payment of such tax stood prescribed under clause (2). The only requirement stipulated in the third condition was for the assessee to “pay tax together with interest”. In the present case, according to the Supreme Court, the third condition also stood fulfilled. The assessee had paid tax with interest up to the date of payment.
The Supreme Court held that the assessee was entitled to immunity under clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c).
