JUDGMENT appeal is directed against order dated April 30, 2014, by which learned Tribunal allowed appeal preferred by assessee challenging order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) affirming order of penalty passed under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by order of Tribunal, Revenue has come up in appeal. After hearing learned counsel for both parties, it appears that undisputed facts are as follows: search was conducted on February 3, 2009. During search, assessee disclosed certain facts which have been recorded in order of appellate authority, which reads as follows: "The facts of case are that search under section 132 was conducted at premises of assessee on February 3, 2009. In course of search, assessee made voluntary disclosure under section 132(4) disclosing sum of Rs. 6 crores even though no incriminating document suggesting any such undisclosed income was found. said disclosure, as per said deposition of assessee recorded under section 131 was bifurcated into 3 persons, i.e., of Rs. 3,50,00,000 was disclosed in name of assessee, Rs. 2,25,00,000 was disclosed in name of assessee's wife, Smt. Rajshree Dugor, and Rs. 25,00,000 was disclosed in name of limited company, viz., Indian Gem and Jewellery (Imperial) Pvt. Ltd. in which assessee had substantial interest. It may be repeated that no concealed income was established from any of papers and documents found in course of search in panchnama of assessee or in other panchnamas. entire disclosure was made voluntarily and in good faith which is apparent from question and answer No. 22 in statement recorded under section 131 wherein assessee categorically states that he is voluntarily disclosing income even though no incriminating documents have been found and all purchases and sales are correctly recorded and disclosure was made just to cover papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs. 3.50 lakhs in two parts, i.e., Rs. 70,00,000 for assessment year 2008- 09 and Rs. 2.80 lakhs for assessment year 2009-10." On basis of disclosure, assessee filed return on March 31, 2010, offering sum of Rs. 70,00,000 for taxation earned during assessment year 2008-09. It is not in dispute that for assessment year 2008-09, assessee had earlier filed his return in which aforesaid sum of Rs. 70,00,000 was not disclosed. case of assessee, as such, came squarely within provision of section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act. Assessing Officer passed order of penalty, as indicated earlier, which was affirmed by appellate authority. Tribunal interfered with order of appellate authority on basis of judgment of Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in case of ITO v. Gope M. Rochalani. aforesaid judgment, Mr. Khaitan submitted, has to be read in conjunction with clause (b) of Explanation 5A to section 271(1), which provides as follows: "(b) due date for filing return of income for such previous year has expired but assessee has not filed return;" aforesaid clause, we are inclined to think, is not applicable to case of assessee for simple reason that it is not case of assessee that he had not filed return for assessment year 2008-09. clause (b) quoted above, according to us, shall not apply to those cases where assessee had filed return but did not disclose income, as in this case. His case shall be covered by clause (a), which provides as follows : "(a) Where return of income for such previous year has been furnished before said date but such income has not been declared therein;" Tribunal, as such, fell into error in proceeding on basis that assessee is entitled to get benefit/immunity under clause (b) quoted above. Tribunal also appears to have, for purpose of interfering with order of appellate authority, relied upon its own judgment in case of Ajit Kumar Surana v. Asst. CIT which, even Mr. Khaitan did not dispute, has no manner of application to facts and circumstances of instant case. In case of Ajit Kumar Surana, there was no search and seizure. In case before us there was, in fact, search and seizure on February 3, 2009. During search and seizure, disclosure was made on February 3, 2009. During search and seizure, assessee made statement which was recorded by officers of Revenue. Stress was laid by Tribunal on expression "voluntary" but Tribunal failed to understand that meaning of expression "voluntary" in context is that statement made by him was not extorted from him by applying force. It is in that sense voluntary disclosure which has been clarified by assessee by stating in answer to question No. 23 that he had not given any statement under pressure and he did not want to rectify or modify statement made by him. For aforesaid reasons, we are of opinion that order of Tribunal is unsustainable in law and, therefore, is set aside. order of appellate authority is, therefore, restored. appeal and applications are thus disposed of. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Prasanna Dugar