Per Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member: These appeals by assessee emanate out of common order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai dated 23-1-2007 for concerned assessment years. 2. common issue raised is that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). 3. brief facts of case are narrated as under: There was search in premises of SRM Group of companies on 12-8- 2004. During course of search, Department came across details of all deposits made by various persons in M/s. Valliammai Society and SRM Benefit Fund. On going through details of deposits in these two concerns, it was found that assessee had invested Rs. 131.75 lakhs in Valliammai Society and Rs. 47.7 lakhs in SRM Benefit Fund totalling to Rs. 179.45 lakhs. DDI (Inv.), who conducted search called for returns of assessee and found that assessee had not disclosed these deposits in returns filed. Therefore, DDIT (Inv.) issued summons dated 29-10-1994 to assessee asking assessee to appear on 3-11-2004 and in backside of summons, DDI (Inv.) mentioned that assessee should bring assessment details of various entities in names of which assessee made deposits in these two concerns. assessee appeared before DDIT (Inv.) on 3-11-2004 and deposed that he had not disclosed to Department deposits made in these two concerns. assessee paid tax of Rs. 25,00,000 on 3-11-2004 and Rs. 31,26,417 on 4-11-2004 totalling to Rs. 56.26 lakhs on these fixed deposits and initially filed returns in name of assessee and his HUF for assessment year 2004-05 admitting entire fixed deposits in hands of these two entities. Later on, HUF of assessee filed revised return admitting more income, as there were certain undisclosed depo-sits other than SRM Group of entities. total deposits disclosed in hands of these two entities ultimately worked out to Rs. 2.09 crores. Later on, department issued notices under section 153C for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2004-05 and assessee filed returns for all these years. income returned originally as well as income returned under section 153C was accepted in toto for assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05. However, for assessment year 1999- 2000, income returned was assessed at Rs. 54,73,038 and after relief of Rs. 1,99,979 obtained from Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), total income to be assessed became Rs. 52,73,059. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Act for assessment years 2000- 01 to 2004-05 and called for explanation of assessee. assessee contended that he has paid tax immediately on receipt of summons from DDIT (Inv.) and filed returns without waiting for notices under section 148 and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) should be imposed. Assessing Officer overruled objections and imposed minimum penalty. 4. Before learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) it was stated that assessee has paid tax on income even before issue of notice under section 153C; that amounts assessed under section 153C for above five years were already offered for assessment for assessment year 2004-05 by filing revised returns; that payment of tax under section 140A on 4- 11-2004 was prior to issue of notice under section 153C on 22-11-2005 and that, therefore, there is no concealment of income warranting levy of penalty. 5. However, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not accept his contentions. He held that assessee had originally filed returns for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2004-05 declaring lesser income and he has filed returns under section 153C declaring higher incomes. Therefore, there was concealment of particulars of income in returns originally filed. He further held that returns filed under section 153C cannot be considered to be voluntary. It was only after DDIT (Inv.) had information regarding assessee's concealed income and had issued summons to assessee, did assessee come out and disclose said income. learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that, at least if assessee had filed revised return immediately after 12-8-2004 but before receipt of summons from DDIT (Inv.), it can be said that returns were voluntary. He further held that, assessee harped many time that he has filed these returns before getting any notice from Department. According to learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), first returns that were filed for assessment year 2004-05 for tax (Appeals), first returns that were filed for assessment year 2004-05 for assessee and his HUF might have been filed before receipt of any notice from Department. But impugned penalties were on basis of revised returns filed on 5-12-2005 and all these returns were filed in pursuance of notice under section 153C dated 22-11-2005. Therefore, it is not factually correct to say that assessee has filed returns before getting notices from Department; in fact they were filed only after receipt of notices. 6. assessee further tried to draw parallel to Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). On this point learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) agreed that, if person is searched and during course of search, searched person gives statement under section 132(4) that he had concealed income and pays tax and interest, then penalty need not be imposed under Explanation 5 to section under section 271(1)(c). In case of assessee, there was neither search nor sworn statement under section 132(4) of Act. Hence, in these circumstances learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that it may not be possible to hold that assessee comes under Explanation 5 to section under section 271(1)(c). Thereafter, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) referring to certain case laws confirmed levy of penalty after pointing out certain mistakes in calculation of penalty. Against this order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), assessee is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard both counsels and perused relevant records. learned counsel of assessee placed reliance upon Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). He further relied upon following case laws:- CIT v. E.V. Balashanmugham [2006] 286 ITR 626 (Mad.); CIT v. S.D.V. Chandru [2004] 266 ITR 175 (Mad.); Om Prakash Trivedi v. UOI [2006] 287 ITR 11 (All.). learned counsel of assessee further submitted that in new chapter for such assessments, there was no provision akin to section 158BFA. new chapter had come into effect from 1-6-2003 and section 271AAA was introduced only from 1-4-2007. He submitted that when there was no law for levy of penalty, same cannot be imposed. 8. learned Departmental Representative, on other hand, supported t h e orders of authorities below and submitted that returns filed by assessee were not at all voluntary. He further placed reliance upon following case laws:- M. Sajjanraj Nahar v. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 230 (Mad.). K.L. Swamy v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 386 (Kar.). CIT v. C. Ananthan Chettiar [2005] 142 TAXMAN 556 (Mad.). learned Departmental Representative further submitted that there was no action under section 132(4) in case of assessee. learned counsel o f assessee in rejoinder submitted that, officer in this case issuing summons under section 31(1) is same as one initiating action under section 132(4) in case of SRM. learned counsel of assessee further relied upon Allahabad High Court decision in case of CIT v. Brahm Swarup Tandon & Co. [2006] 283 ITR 320. 9. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused relevant records. First of all, we find that provisions of section 271(1)(c) are very much applicable to assessment in case of search or acquisition under new sections, as it has been specifically provided by way of Explanation to section 153A that, ' save as otherwise provided in this section, section 153B and 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to assessment made under this section.' Hence, plea of learned counsel of assessee that no penalty can b e imposed in this case as section 271AAA was inserted with effect from 1-4- 2007 does not at all help assessee as same is applicable only in case of search that has been initiated under section 132 on or after 1-6-2007. 10. Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) which is being relied upon by learned counsel of assessee is reproduced as under:- ' Explanation 5. -Where in course of search under section 132, assessee is found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilising (wholly or in part) his income,- (a)for any previous year which has ended before date of search, but return of income for such year has not been furnished before said date or, where such return has been furnished before said date, such income has not been declared therein; or (b)for any previous year which is to end on or after date of search, then, notwithstanding that such income is declared by him in any return of income furnished on or after date of search, he shall, for purposes of imposition of penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of this section, be deemed to have concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, unless,- (1)such income is, or transactions resulting in such income are recorded,- (i)in case falling under clause (a), before date of search; and (ii) in case falling under clause (b), on or before such date, in books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income or such income is otherwise disclosed to Chief Commissioner or Commissioner before said date; or (2)he, in course of search, makes statement under sub-section (4) of section 132 that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under his control, has been acquired out of his income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before expiry of time specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, and also specifies in statement manner in which such income has been derived and pays tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of such income.' 11. Section 132 of Income-tax Act deals with procedure and powers of authorities in respect of search and seizure activities. Section 132(4) provides that, ' authorised officer may, during course of search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act.' 12. Section 131 of Income-tax Act deals with powers and procedures of Income-tax authorities regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc., section 131 (1) provides that, ' Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Joint Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals) and Chief Commissioner or Commissioner shall, for purposes of this Act, have same powers as are vested in court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when trying suit in respect of following matters, namely:- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing attendance of any person, including any officer of banking company and examining him on oath; (c) compelling production of books of account and other documents and (d)issuing commissions.' 13. Now, we find that assessee in this case is placing reliance upon Explanation 5(b)(2) above in section 271(1)(c). We find that, at threshold Explanation 5 states that, ' Where in course of search under section 132,. . . .' Hence, it is abundantly clear that this Explanation is applicable only in cases where search under section 132 has taken place. Again Explanation 5(b)(2) at threshold states that, ' he, in course of search makes statement under sub-section (4) of section 132 that any money. . . .' and section goes on to specify procedure to be adopted where assessee can be relieved of rigours of penalty. Admittedly, in this case there was no search under section 132 in case of assessee. Only summons under section 131(1) were issued by DDIT. Since section 132 was never invoked, there is no question of case falling under Explanation 5 or assessee complying with provisions of Explanation 5(b)(2) above. 14. It is settled rule of interpretation that fiscal statutes must be strictly construed. Assumptions and presumptions are not permissible in fiscal provision. In this regard Hon'ble Apex Court has held in case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1991] 188 ITR 402 that, 'fiscal laws must be strictly construed, words must say what these mean, nothing should be presumed or implied, these must say so. true test must always be language used.' On touchstone of this decision we find that, there cannot be any assumption that Explanation 5 can be applied to persons other than person who has been searched under section 132. 15. To quote Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345, ' There is no scope for importing into statute words which are not there. Such importation would be, not to construe, but to amend statute. Even if there be casus omissus, defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation.' (p. 357) To us, there appears no justification to depart from normal rule of construction according to which intention of Legislature is primarily to be gathered from words used in statute. It will be well to recall words of Rowlatt J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921] 1 KB 64 (KB) that: ' . . . in taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at language used.' (p. 71) In background of aforesaid discussion, in our opinion, learned counsel of assessee's plea that Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) is attracted here is liable to be dismissed. 16. case laws relied upon by learned counsel of assessee viz., E.V. Balashanmugham's case (supra) and S.D.V. Chandru's case (supra) were rendered in context of cases where search under section 132 had been conducted and state-ments made by person searched under section 132(4) was involved. Hence, in our opinion, these case laws are not at all applicable on facts of this case. decision relied upon by assessee in case of Om Prakash Trivedi (supra) is also not applicable on facts of this case as it is in context of assessee fulfilling condition mentioned in clause (e) of Board's instructions dated 23-5-1996, and making it case of deduction/waiver of interest. As held by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Goodyear India Ltd. (supra) that 'a precedent is authority only for what it actually decides and not for what may remotely or even logically follow from it.' 17. On other hand, case laws relied upon by learned Departmental Representative are germane to issue. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of K.L. Swamy (supra) has elaborated on term, 'Voluntary' as under:- ' Assessees are entitled to waiver of penalty only if they had made disclosure by filing their returns voluntarily and in good faith. term 'voluntary' has to be understood as anything done intentionally and without coercion, compulsion or constraint. Coercion may in turn be direct or positive as in cases where physical force is used to compel act against one's will or it may be implied. That would not however mean that mere legal obligation to do something should constitute constraint of kind which would render any such action involuntary. It follows that circumstances, conditions or constraints that make disclosure under Act 'involuntary' must be constraints other than obligations that arise under Act, requiring assessee to take particular action. expression 'good faith' means act done honestly even if same be tainted with negligence or mistake. Section 2(22) of General Clauses Act, 1897, lends similar meaning to said expression. In order that disclosure is termed as having been made in good faith, same must be demonstrably honest. disclosure which is made under compulsion of possible penalty or other proceedings cannot be termed honest or one made in good faith, underlying object of any such disclosure being not to come clean on subject but to avoid adverse consequences that may follow non- disclosure.' 18. Full Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Bhairav Lal Verma v. Union of India [1998] 230 ITR 855 has held that, ' 'Voluntary' means, out of free will without any compulsion. Disclosure of concealed income after department has seized incriminating materials with regard to income so disclosed, cannot be voluntary disclosure because it is made under constraint of exposure to adverse action by department.' 19. We further find that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of C. Ananthan Chettiar (supra) has considered similar question. In that case, Income-tax Department in search and seizure operation conducted in assessee's shop and residence, seized cash, jewellery and certain documents. Thereafter, assessee filed revised return for assessment year 1986-87 disclosing additional income, which was accepted, and assessment was made on basis of revised return. assessee took stand that there was no concealment and it was only for purpose of buying peace with Department that additional income was disclosed and revised return was filed. Tribunal accepted this plea of assessee and held that no penalty, in circumstances, was leviable by relying on Supreme Court decision in S i r Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. On reference, Madras High Court set aside order and observed (page 403):- ' Learned counsel for revenue submitted that order of Tribunal is not in accordance with law, as it has ignored Explanation to section under section 271(1)(c) of Act. Learned counsel also placed reliance on decision in case of K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC), wherein it was held that law declared by court in case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705 (SC) was no longer applicable by reason of addition of Explanation to section 271. That Explanation casts burden on assessee to show that additional income that had not been disclosed was not due to fraud or neglect. In this case, assessee offered no explanation at all except to assert that he disclosed income only to buy peace with Department and what w s disclosed, in fact, was additional income. reason for not having disclosed income earlier was not stated. In these circumstances, Tribunal was in error in setting aside penalty. question is answered in favour of revenue and against assessee, in light of later decision of three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in case of K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99.' 20. In case of K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC), facts of case was that for assessment year 1986-87, assessee, partnership firm, filed return of income and assessment was completed determining total income of assessee which included income from other sources. However, assessee did not enter in cash book some of transactions on date when purchase was made. After assessing authority noticed aforesaid fact, assessee offered some amount as additional income. assessment was accordingly made treating amount as unexplained investment. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated against assessee under section 271(1)(c) of Act. Assessing Officer found assessee's explanation unacceptable and imposed penalty. appeal filed by assessee was refused. assessee then preferred appeal before Income-tax Tribunal. Tribunal allowed appeal. Arising out of order of Tribunal, questions noted therein were placed for consideration of High Court. High Court answered questions in favour of revenue. Then assessee moved Supreme Court. Supreme Court considered ratio decided by Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. P.M. Shah [1993] 203 ITR 792 and in case of CIT v. case of CIT v. P.M. Shah [1993] 203 ITR 792 and in case of CIT v. Dharmchand L. Shah [1993] 204 ITR 462 and observed:- ' We find it difficult to accept as correct two judgments aforementioned. Explanation to section under section 271(1 )(c) is part of section 271. When Income-tax Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner issues to assessee notice under section 271, he makes assessee aware that provisions thereof are to be used against him. These provisions include Explanation. By reason of Explanation, where total income returned by assessee is less than 80 per cent of total income assessed under section 143 or 144 or 147, reduced to extent therein provided, assessee is deemed to have concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, unless he proves that failure to return correct income did not arise from any fraud or neglect on his part. assessee is, therefore, by virtue of notice under section 271 put to notice that if he does not prove, in circumstances stated in Explanation, that his failure to return his correct income was not due to fraud or neglect, he shall be deemed to have concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof and, consequently, be liable to penalty provided by that thereof and, consequently, be liable to penalty provided by that section. No express invocation of Explanation to section 271 in notice under section 271 is, in our view, necessary before provisions of Explanation therein are applied. High Court at Bombay was, therefore, in error in view that it took and Division Bench in impugned judgment was right.' (p. 103) Hence, it is amply clear that, only after revenue was in possession of incriminating materials pertaining to undisclosed income of assessee found during search of SRM Group and summons under section 131(1) were issued to assessee, did assessee come out with payment of advance tax and disclosure of additional income by revised return. Hence, on touchstone of these decisions and discussions, assessee's action of paying tax and filing revised return cannot be called to be voluntary one. In background of aforesaid discussion and precedents, we affirm order of authorities below and decide issue in favour of revenue. 21. In result, these appeals by assessee are dismissed. *** M.N. RAJARAMAN v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX