TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order are that search and seizure operation was carried out at the residential and business premises of Jindal Group of cases, Panchkula on 15.7.2008. During the course of search and seizure, assessee group made disclosure of Rs. 4 crores vide letter dated 22.7.2008 and explained surrender of Rs. 4 crores earned from their Food processing business / property business consultancy and liaisoning income, the details of the same are noted in the impugned order. The surrender was made in personal hands of Roshan Lal Jindal, Moti Lal Jindal, Ashok Jindal and Amit Jindal on equal share basis as they have a joint family business. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. 83,84,510/-. The assessee derived income from sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se Departmental official was not satisfied they could have asked for further clarification. Thus, no fault can be attributed to the assessee, if any. The assessee was not expected to know the technicalities of law. The Assessing officer however, did not accept explanations of the assessee and levied penalty as noted above. 3. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that he has declared the sum while filing the return of income and full payment of tax have been made which have not been disputed by the Assessing officer. The penalty has been imposed merely because the manner of earning income has not been disclosed. He relied upon the order of the ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of Sh. DCIT Vs. Sanjeev Goyal and other in which it was hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also not in dispute that assessee had attributed this income as being derived from speculative dealings in commodities in oral dealings, outside the books of accounts. It is further not in dispute that the assessee had disclosed the surrendered income in its return of income and paid the taxes thereon. In the above factual background, it is to be seen whether penalty u/s 271AAA is leviable. It is the contention of the Revenue that though admittedly, the assessee has surrendered an income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- during the course of search and seizure operation, disclosed the manner of earning the same being from 5 speculative dealings in commodities and also disclosed the income in its return of income, the assessee had not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 132(4) during the search having been made and the assessee having surrendered certain income for the relevant assessment years in the statements during the course of search and filed returns declaring the same pursuant to notice under section 153A and which returns have been accepted by the AO, levy of penalty under section 271 AAA was not justified on the ground that the assessee has though made disclosure but failed to specify the manner in which such income had been derived. Hon'ble Tribunal further held that no definition could be given to the "specified manner" and there is no prescribed method given in the statute to indicate the manner in which income was generated. It has been held in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharm....