Sh. Roshan Lal Jindal, Chandigarh V. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 1555/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6690 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 153A; 132; 10

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH , . ... , %& BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1555/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SH.ROSHAN LAL JINDAL, HOUSE NO.83, NAC, MANIMAJRA, CHANDIGARH THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH. ./ PAN NO.AAMPJ1997R / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADV ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR. DR. ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 29.04.2019 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.05.2019 /ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)-3, GURGAON (IN SHORT CIT(A) DATED 29.8.20 17, UPHOLDING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271AAA OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT). ITA NO.1555/CHD/2017 A.Y.2009-10 2 2. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO LEV Y OF PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT ON CASH SURRENDERED DURING SE ARCH CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEES U/S 132 OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION W AS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF JIN DAL GROUP OF CASES OF PANCHKULA ON 15.7.2008 AND THE ASSESSEE WA S ONE OF THE PERSONS COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH ACTION. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED A N ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.38,87,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF T HE FOLLOWING ASSETS/DOCUMENTS:- (I) CASH FOUND FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP AMOUNTING TO RS.11 LACS. (II) PAGES 54 TO 59, OF ANNEXURE A-10 OF DELTA-I, AMOUNTING TO RS.60,000/-. (III) CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN FIRMS AND PURCHASE OF S HARES OF COMPANIES AMOUNTING TO RS.19,77,500/-. (IV) JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS.7,50,000/-. 4. THE ABOVE SURRENDER WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVEN UE ALSO. HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271AAA WAS INITIATED AND THERE AFTER LEVIED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME HAD BEEN EARNED BY HIM. ITA NO.1555/CHD/2017 A.Y.2009-10 3 5. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.C IT(A), WHO FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN T HE CASE OF DCIT VS. SHRI SANJEEV GOYAL IN ITA NO.109/CHD/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, AS PER WHICH IF THE ASSESS EE HAD DISCLOSED INCOME WHILE GIVING STATEMENT U/S 132(4) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND PAID TAX THEREON AND SHOWED TH E SAID UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE RETURN UNDER THE HEAD IN COME FROM BUSINESS NO PENALTY U/S 271AAA WAS LEVIABLE . IN V IEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION, SURRENDER OF CASH OF RS.11 LACS , THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KIM PHARMA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (P&H) (2003) 258 CTR 458, THE SAME WAS ASSE SSABLE AS DEEMED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69A OF THE ACT AN D NOT BUSINESS INCOME AND SINCE NO EXPLANATION WITH REGAR D TO THE SAME HAS BEEN FURNISHED, PENALTY U/S 271AAA ON THE SAME WAS UPHELD. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT P ARA 5- 5.4 OF HIS ORDER ARE AS UNDER: 5. DECISION:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF PENALTY IMPOSED BY T HE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT . THE PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 271AAA MAK E IT CLEAR THAT THE PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON UNDISCLOSED INCOM E OF THE SPECIFIED YEAR IF THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE S UB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271AAA ARE NOT SATISFIED. IT, THEREFORE, FO LLOWS THAT FIRST THING TO DETERMINE IS WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCL OSED INCOME UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. THE CONCEPT OF UNDIS CLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN CLEARLY DEFINED BY EXPLANATION TO S ECTION 271AAA. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY ON THE ITA NO.1555/CHD/2017 A.Y.2009-10 4 GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS EARNED. 5.1 THE AO HAS MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN THIS CASE: (I) THE ASSESSEE MADE A SURRENDER OF RS. 38,87,5007 - FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. (II) THIS DISCLOSURE WAS DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. (III) THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNE R IN WHICH THE INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED. (IV) IN VIEW OF THE SAME, PENALTY U/S 271AAA WAS IM POSED. 5.2 THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAS SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS:- (I) THE APPELLANT ADMITTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME O F RS. 38,87,500/- 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 TH AT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS U/S 132 , THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,50,00,0 00/-. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD ATTRIBUTED THIS INCOME AS BEING DERIVED FROM SPECULATIVE DEALINGS IN COMMO DITIES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS I FURTHER NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE SURRENDERED INCOME I N ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND PAID THE TAXES THEREON. IN THE ABOVE FACTUAL BACKGROUND, IT IS TO SEEN WHET HER PENALTY U/S 271AAA IS LEVIABLE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THOUGH ADM ITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED AN INCOME OF RS. 1,50,00,0 00/- DURING ITA NO.1555/CHD/2017 A.Y.2009-10 5 THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, DISCLOS ED THE MANNER OF EARNING THE SAME BEING FROM SPECULATIVE DEALINGS IN COMMODITIES AND ALSO DISCLOSED THE INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF INCO ME, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER OF EARNIN G THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND HENCE NOT FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED U/S 2 71AAA FOR GRANT OF IMMUNITY FROM PE NALTY. THE ISSUE THEREFORE IS WHETHER ADMISSION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND A DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE SAME COULD BE TREATED AS COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDIT ION OF SPECIFYING AND SUBSTANTIATING THE MANNER IN WHIC H THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS EARNED AS REQUIRED BY THE SEC TION 271AAA(2)(I)AND (II). 10. WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR REQUIREMENT OF DISCLOSING TH E MANNER IN WHICH UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS EARNED IS ALSO THERE IN EXPLANATION-5 TO SECTION 271(L)(C). INTERPRETING WH ICH THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RADHAKRISHANGOEL (2005) 278 ITR 454 OBSERVED THAT N ON DISCLOSURE OF MANNER OF EARNING THE UNDISCLOSED INC OME IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING BENEFIT UNDER EXPLANATION 5 BELOW SECTION 271(L)(C). IN CIT VS MAHENDRA C. SH AH [2008] 215 CTR 493 (GUJ). IT WAS HELD THE ASSESSEE HAVING DECLARED THE VALUE OF DIAMONDS IN HIS STATEMENT UND ER SECTION 132(4) AND PAID TAXES THEREON BEFORE ASSESS MENT WAS ENTITLE TO IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) UNDER EXPLANATION 5 THEREOF EVEN THOUGH THE STATEME NT DID NOT SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME REPRESEN TING VALUE OF DIAMONDS IN HIS STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 13 2(4) AND PAID TAXES THEREON BEFORE ASSESSMENT WAS ENTITLED T O IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) UNDER EXPLANATION 5 THEREOF EVEN THOUGH THE STATEMENT DID NOT SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME REPRESENTING VALUE OF DIAMONDS WAS DERIVED. WITH RESPECT TO SUCH REQUI REMENT IN RELATION TO SECTION 271AAA, IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN V. DY. CIT (2013) 33 TAXMANN.COM 651 (CTK) THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 1 32(4) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAVING BEEN MADE AND TH E ASSESSEE HAVING SURRENDERED CERTAIN INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE STATEMENTS DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH AND FILED RETURNS DECLARING THE SAME PURSUAN T TO ITA NO.1555/CHD/2017 A.Y.2009-10 6 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A AND WHICH RETURNS HAVE BE EN ACCEPTED BY THE AO, LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 2 71AAA WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS THOUGH MADE DISCLOSURE BUT FAILED TO SPECIFY THE MA NNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN DERIVED. HON'BLE TRIBUNA L FURTHER HELD THAT NO DEFINITION COULD BE GIVEN TO THE 'SPECIFIED MANNER' AND THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED METHO D GIVEN IN THE STATUTE TO INDICATE THE MANNER IN WHIC H 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 CO ULD BE LEVIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD T HE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) DELETING THE PENALTY. 5.4 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY THE APPELLANT AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HON'BLE ITAT CHANDIGARH ON THIS ISSUE DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS HEL D THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SPECIFIED AND SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER OF EARNING THE INCOME WITH REGARD TO FOLLOWI NG INCOME DISCLOSED:- (I) CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN FIRMS AND PURCHASE OF SHA RES OF COMPANIES AMOUNTING TO RS.19,77,500/-. (II) DOCUMENTS PAGE 54-59 OF ANNEXURE A-10 OF DELTA 1 AMOUNTING RS. 60,000/- ITA NO.1555/CHD/2017 A.Y.2009-10 7 HOWEVER WITH REGARD TO DISCLOSURE ON ACCOUNT OF CAS H FOUND FROM RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP AMO UNTING RS. 11,00,000/-, IT IS HELD THAT MANNER OF EARNING THIS INCOME-HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED AND SUBSTANTIATED BECAUSE:- (I) CASH OF RS. 11 LAKH SURRENDERED BY THE APPELLANT WA S PART OF RS. 44 LAKH CASH SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSE E GROUP VIDE LETTER DATED 22.07.2008 AND IT WAS IN TH E SURRENDER LETTER ITSELF STATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND IN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KIM PHARMA (P) LTD VS CIT (P&H) [2013) 258 CTR 458 THAT WHERE AMOUNT SURRENDERED DURING SURVEY WAS NOT REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NO SOURCE FROM W HERE IT WAS DERIVED WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS ASSESS ABLE AS DEEMED INCOME OF ASSESSEE U/S 69A AND NOT BUSINESS INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERRED JUDGEMENT, CASH FOUND IS HELD AS UNEXPLAINED AS NO FROM WHICH IT IS DERIVED. THUS, W ITH REGARD TO THE SAME, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT H AS NOT SPECIFIED AND SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER OF EARNING I NCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND HENCE PENALTY U/S 2 71AAA OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE ON THIS AMOUNT. SIMILARLY, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT SPECIFIED AND SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER OF EARNING INCOME INVESTED IN JEWELLERY AMOUNTING RS.7,50,000/- NOR WAS THE DISCL OSURE OF THE SAME MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, P ENALTY U/S 271AAA IS LEVIABLE ON THIS AMOUNT ALSO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, PENALTY U/S 271AA A AMOUNTING TO RS.1,85,000/- RELATED TO SURRENDER REL ATED TO CASH AND JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS.18,50,000/- IS CONFIR MED AND THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT. 6. AS A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.1555/CHD/2017 A.Y.2009-10 8 1 THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS)-3, GURGAON HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.1,85,000/- RELATING TO SURRENDER OF CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF T HE ASSESSEE GROUP AND JEWELERY AMOUNTING TO RS.18,50,000/-. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A)-3, HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT WITH REGARD TO CASH FOUND DURING SEARCH AND JEWELLERY, THE APPE LLANT HAS NOT SPECIFIED AND SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER OF EARNI NG THE INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND HENCE PENALT Y U/S 271 AAA OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE ON THIS AMOUNT. 3. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE PEN ALTY U/S 271AAA WITH REGARD TO CASH FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND JEWELLERY, HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF ASS ESSEE 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 DISPOS ED 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 A S PER THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF KIM PHARMA PVT. LTD.(SUPRA). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR AS SESSEE STATED THAT THIS FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS CONTR ARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE SINCE THE SURRENDER MADE ON ACCOU NT OF CASH HAD NOT BEEN ASSESSED AS DEEMED INCOME U/S 69A OF T HE ACT BUT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED ALONGWITH THE OTHER INCOME SU RRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE, PENALTY ON WHICH HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). ITA NO.1555/CHD/2017 A.Y.2009-10 9 8. THE LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED TO THIS FACT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO SPECIFY AND SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNE R OF EARNING THE CASH SURRENDERED AND THEREFORE PENALTY U/S 271AAA HAD BEEN RIGHTLY UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAV E ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). A SIMILAR ISS UE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASES OF SHRI ASHOK JINDAL VS. DCIT & OTHERS IN ITA NO.1556/CHD/2 017 & SHRI AMIT JINDAL VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.1557/CHD/2017 ( JINDAL GROUP OF CASES), DATED 15.10.2018 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EES. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 9 ARE REP RODUCED AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A).UNDISPUTEDLY THE ENTIRE SURRENDER MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN FIRMS , DOCUMENTS FOUND AND CASH , AMOUNTING IN ALL TO RS.54,87,500/- WAS ACCEPTED AND ASSESSED TO TAX BY THE REVENUE. ALL TAXES THEREON HAD BEEN PAID. ADMITTEDLY, NO PORTION OF THE SURRENDER HAD BEEN ASSESSED SEPARATELY UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD. THEREFORE THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV GOY AL (SUPRA) APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE SURRENDER MADE, AND T HE CIT(A), WE HOLD HAD WRONGLY SEGREGATED THE SURRENDE R MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH BY STATING THAT THE SAME WA S ITA NO.1555/CHD/2017 A.Y.2009-10 10 ASSESSABLE U/S 69A OF THE ACT, WHEN THE FACT WAS TH AT IT HAD NOT BEEN SO ASSESSED. IN FACT ON GOING THROU GH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV GOYAL (SUPRA) WE FIND THAT IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THE SAID C ASE THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF INCOME U/S 132(4) DURING SEA RCH HAVING BEEN MADE AND THE ASSESSEE HAVING SURRENDERED THE SAME AND INCLUDED THE SAME IN THE RETURNS FILED WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, NO PENALTY U/S 271AAA IS LEVIABLE FOR NOT SPECIFYING THE MANNER OF EARNING THE INCOME SURRENDERED. ALL THE AFORESAID CONDITIONS ADMITTED LY STOOD FULFILLED IN THE CASE OF SURRENDER MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DOCUMENTS FOUND AND CAPITAL INTRODUCED I N THE FIRM ,AS PER THE CIT(A). THE CASH WAS ALSO PART OF THE SAME SURRENDER AND NO DISTINCTION HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT OF THE SAME WITH THE REST OF THE SURREN DER MADE. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE CASH SURRENDER ED AND THE SAME IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED . 10. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY C OVERED BY THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL, FOLLOWING WHICH , WE DELETE THE PENALTY UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). AND ALLOW THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.05.2019. . ... (DR.B.R.R.KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG ) & ()* /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER +, /DATED: 6 TH MAY, 2019 * * ITA NO.1555/CHD/2017 A.Y.2009-10 11 &) *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $ 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR