Allowing the appeal the Court held that Tribunal has not only committed some factual errors in respect of filing of return of income by the Assessee but also invoked Explanation 3 and 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act with respect to the alleged non-filing return of income by the Assessee in pursuance of notice issued after the Search which took place in the business place of the Assessee and such a revised Return was filed by the Assessee voluntarily surrendering such income of Rs.1,53,99,000/-and while apparently surrendering all the income on its own by the Assessee ought not to have attracted penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the learned Tribunal has not only restored the penalty by the impugned order but also restored the penalty on the issue for which no ground was raised in the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Revenue before it. The Explanations which give rise to presumption of concealment are rebuttable presumptions and therefore without discussing those facts about such rebuttal or otherwise, the Penalty could not be reimposed by the Tribunal particularly when it was reversing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard, who found the explanation of the Assessee satisfactory and had deleted the penalty in question. The order was quashed and remanded to the Tribunal to decide in accordance with law .  (AY .2006-2007)

Allowing the appeal the Court held that Tribunal has not only committed some factual errors in respect of filing of return of income by the Assessee but also invoked Explanation 3 and 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act with respect to the alleged non-filing return of income by the Assessee in pursuance of notice issued after the Search which took place in the business place of the Assessee and such a revised Return was filed by the Assessee voluntarily surrendering such income of Rs.1,53,99,000/-and while apparently surrendering all the income on its own by the Assessee ought not to have attracted penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the learned Tribunal has not only restored the penalty by the impugned order but also restored the penalty on the issue for which no ground was raised in the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Revenue before it. The Explanations which give rise to presumption of concealment are rebuttable presumptions and therefore without discussing those facts about such rebuttal or otherwise, the Penalty could not be reimposed by the Tribunal particularly when it was reversing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard, who found the explanation of the Assessee satisfactory and had deleted the penalty in question. The order was quashed and remanded to the Tribunal to decide in accordance with law .  (AY .2006-2007)