1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2010 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur Vs. Rakesh Kumar Shahu Nagpur) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri Parchure Adv for appellant. Shri Dewani Adv for respondents. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & A. P. BHANGALE JJ. DATED: 7th OCTOBER, 2011. . Heard Shri Parchure learned counsel for the appellant who relies upon Explanation 5(2) of Section 271(1) to urge that ITAT has wrongly accepted the discloser of exonerated assessee in penalty proceedings. Shri Dewani relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal , 251 Income Tax Reports 9 (S. C.) to show that in similar circumstances discloser to buy peace has been accepted and appeal has not been entertained. He also points out from the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court that Assessment years involved there were 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 2 explanation filed in its present form has been added on 01.10.1984. The authorities have concurrently recorded findings in favour of present claimant, finding of facts are not in dispute. Explanation at 5(2) also shows that if such discloser is made during the course of such search the law does not treat assessee as a person who has concealed income. Deemed fixation incorporated therein stands excluded because of Clause (2) added to Explanation 5. We, therefore, do not find any substantial question of law arising in the matter. Appeal rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE svk