Smt. Mrudulaben B. Patel vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 January, 2002
8. Referring to the contention on behalf of the assessee that she was lured to make a declaration on the assurance that no penalty was imposed, the learned Departmental Representative invited my attention to the assessment order in which it is clearly mentioned that the appellant was carrying on the legal profession besides being the managing director of the company namely, Hynoup Food and Oil Industries Ltd. As per the instructions of the CBDT, the authorised officer of the search is under instruction to invite the attention of the assessee to the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) for making a declaration in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee that she did not understand the implications of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) is not acceptable. According to the learned Departmental Representative, what the authorised officer has promised was non-imposition of penalty in respect of declaration covered under Expln. 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The officer had not given the assurance that no penalty would be imposed in respect of any amount disclosed which may not be covered under Expln. 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, According to the learned Departmental Representative, the assessee's counsel having himself conceded before the CIT(A) that Expln. 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was not attracted in this case, the question asked during the course of search was of no consequence. Relying upon the decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S. Sivakumar v. Asstt. CIT (1998) 64 ITD 149 (Mad), it was contended that in any case, there cannot be any estoppel against the statute.