TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to the appeal of the other assessee in ITA No.1557/Chd/2017. 3. Briefly stated, a search and seizure operation was carried out at the residential and business premises of Jindal Group of cases of Panchkula on 15.7.2008 and the assessee was one of the persons covered under the search action. The assessee had surrendered an additional income of Rs. 54,87,500/- relating to the impugned year on account of the following assets/documents:- 1) Cash found from the residential premises of the assessee group amounting to Rs. 11 lacs. 2. Pages 54 to 59, of Annexure A-10 of Delta-I, amounting to Rs. 60,000/-. 3. Annexure A-8 of Delta-3 amounting to Rs. 38,50,000/-. 4. Capital introduced in firms amounting to Rs. 4,77,500/-. 4. The above surrender was disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee and was accepted by the Revenue also. However, penalty u/s 271AAA was initiated and thereafter levied for the reason that the assessee had failed to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income had been earned by him. 5. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who followed the decision of ITAT Chandigar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) The appellant admitted the undisclosed income of Rs. 54,87,500/- during the year under consideration and disclosed the same in return filed.' (ii) The income tax alongwith interest was paid on this surrendered amount. (iii) The appellant has substantiated the manner of earning undisclosed income. 5.3 I have gone through the order of Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in case of DCIT vs Shri Sanjeev Goyal ITA No. 109/Chd/ 2015 for AY 2011-12 referred to by the appellant and the relevant part of the judgment is as follows:- "9. The undisputed facts in the present case are that during the course of search and seizure operations u/s 132, the assessee had surrendered an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,OOO/-. It is also not in dispute that assessee had attributed this income as being derived from speculative dealings in commodities outside the books of accounts. It is I 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 seen whether penalty u/s 271AAA is leviable. It is the contention of the Revenue that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 271AAA 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 Sharma v Dy. CIT [2013] 33 taxmann.com 652 (Ctk) that when assessee disclosed concealed income while giving statement under section 132(4) during the course of search and paid tax thereon and showed the said undisclosed income in the return under the head "Income from business" and which undisclosed income has been accepted by the Department, penalty under section 271AAA is not leviable. 11. In view of the above judicial precedents we find that the assessee has specified and substantiated the manner of earning the income and has not violated any of the conditions specified u/s 271AAA(2), for granting immunity from penalty. 12. We therefore hold that no penalty u/s 271AAA could be levied in the present case. Accordingly we uphold the order of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the residential premises of the assessee group. 2. That the Worthy CIT (A)-3, has erred in holding that with regard to cash found during search, the appellant has not specified and substantiated the manner of earning the income during the course of search and hence penalty u/s 271 AAA of the Act is leviable on this amount. 3. That the Worthy CIT (A) while confirming the penalty u/s 271AAAwithregard to cash found during the search, has erred in assessing the income of assessee as deemed income u/s 69A and not business income by following the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Kim Pharma (P) Ltd. vs CIT (P&H) (2013) 258 CTR 458. 4. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off." 7. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee stated that the CIT(A) had upheld the levy of penalty on cash for the reason that the same was assessable as deemed income u/s 69A of the Act and not business income as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd.(supra). The Ld. counsel for assessee stated th....