The ACIT, 3(1), Indore V. M/s. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., Indore

ITA 741/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3004 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2018
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: LALCHAND; RAJIV JAIN DR S SH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Loose papers
• Section: 153A; 27; 132; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCHE, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.741/IND/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 AC IT - 3 (1) INDORE / VS. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 725, INDRALOK COLONY, INDORE ( REVENUE ) ( RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. ABMPK6861C / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF CIT(A)-I, INDORE DATED 22/08/2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: APPELLANT BY SHRI LAL CHAND & SHRI RAJIV JAIN , DR S RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. SACHDEVA & AVINASH GAU R ADVS. DATE OF HEARING: 11.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.08.2018 KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A):- (I) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT OF RS.68,40,000/- ON THE BASIS THAT SEARCH OPERATION WAS TAKEN PLACE AFTER 1 ST JUNE, 2007 AND HELD THAT PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) AS PASSED U/S. 271AAA OF THE I.T. ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING EXPLANATION 5A INSERTED U/S. 271(1)(C) W.E.F. 01.06.2007 BY FINANCE ACT, 2009 AN D ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE SAID EXPLANATION. (II) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW BY CONCLUDING THAT PENALTY IS ATTRACTED U/S. 271AAA, ALTHOUGH AO HAD ELABORATED HIS ACTION AS PER PARA 4.1 TO PARA 6 OF THE PENALTY ORDER AND DISCUSSED IN DETAIL AS TO WHY EXPLANATION 5A OF SECTION 271(1) IS ATTRACTED IN THE ASSESSEE S CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT AND RIGHTLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF PENALTY BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIE D OUT AT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES ON 16.04.2009 . SUBSEQUENTLY, PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A WAS INITIATED WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH UNRECORDED RECEIPTS WERE FOUND, LOOSE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED. THE UNRECORDED RECEIPTS WERE OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY LE TTER DATED 13.10.2009, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INI TIATED KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. 3 PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THIS AMOUNT . THEREAFTER, THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT 1961 WAS PASSED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.06.2012 THEREBY, PENALTY OF RS.68,40,000/- WAS IMPOSED. 4. AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THIS PENALTY AGAINS T WHICH REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELET ING THE PENALTY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, HOWEVE R THE LAW REQUIRES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMMUNITY AGAINST L EVY OF PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE MANNER BY WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS EARNED AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR ) SUPPORTED THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED PENALTY INITIAT ED AND IMPOSED CANNOT BE SUSTAINED SINCE THE SAME IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR THE IMMUNITY AS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO STATEMENT OF SHRI MANISH KALANI RECORDED ON 27.04.2009 TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION TH AT THE KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. 4 ASSESSEE HAS DULY STATED IN THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE SOUR CE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME WAS DERIVED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACE D RELIANCE ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMIT TED THAT THERE HAS TO BE A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE AO IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) IF SUCH SPECIFIC QUERY IS NOT THERE, THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF NEERAT SINGAL VS. ACIT (2014) 161 TTJ (DEL) 483. THE JUDGME NT OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CROSSIN G INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. CIT(2014) 222 TAXMAN 26 (AL D). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE BASIS OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 27 1AAA IS RECORDED BY THE AO IS STATED AS UNDER: 5.1.2 STILL PROCEEDING FURTHER IN THE MATTER IT WO ULD BE PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN TH E DETAILS OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND ITS MANNER OF EARNING THE INCOME ONLY VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 08.12.2012 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT. FRO M ENTIRE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE THE DISCLOSURE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 132(4) REFERRED ABOVE WITHIN KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. 5 THE PERIPHERY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) TO SECTION 271AAA OF THE I.T. ACT TO GET IMMUNITY FROM THE PENALTY UNDER THIS SECTION. THUS THE ASSSSEE HAD NO T FULFILLED ALL THE PRE-REQUISITE CONDITIONS SPECIFIE D IN SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE I.T. ACT OF TH E I.T. ACT. THEREFORE, IT WOULD RATHER BE INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ASSERT THAT HER CASE WAS FULLY COVE RED WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECT ION (2) OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE I.T. ACT. IN VIEW OF T HIS ASSESSEES AFORESAID ARGUMENT IS FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 5.2 AS REGARD THE ASSESSEES MUCH RELIANCE ON THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. KOLCUTTAS ORDER IN ITANO.1326/KOL/2011 IN THE CASE OF DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III KOLCUTTA VS. PIONEER MARBLES & INTERIORS PVT. LTD. IT WOULD SUFFICE TO SAY THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TO THAT OF ASSESSEE. IN THIS CON TEXT IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO MENTIONED THAT IN THE AFORESA ID CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE THE PAYMENT OF TAXE S ON THE ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHIN A SPECIFI ED TIME. CONTRARY TO THIS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ISSU E IS WITH REGARD TO THE NON-DISCLOSURE OF UNDISCLOSED IN COME U/S 132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT R.W.S. 271AAA OF THE I.T . ACT AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARA. HENCE THE RATIO OF THE DECISION AS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFORESAID CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY BY GIVIN G FINDING ON FACT AS UNDER: 5. IN THIS CASE THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY AO FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271AAA IS THAT DISCLOSURE OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.30 CRORES WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT RECORDED U/ S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, BUT BIFURCATION OF SU CH KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. 6 UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND ITS MANNER OF EARNING WAS GIVEN LATER VIDE LETTER DATED. 13.10.2009. THEREFOR E, DISCLOSURE OF INCOME OF RS.15,22,80,188/- MADE BY T HE APPELLANT FOR A.Y. 2009-10, THROUGH THIS LETTER DAT ED 13.10.2009 COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE DISCUSSED IN A STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SEARCH U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. THE BASIS OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED. THERE IS N O DISPUTE THAT APPELLANT DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.30 CRORES IN A STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SEARCH U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ONLY THE BIFURCATION OF SUCH DISCLOSURE YEAR WISE AND PARTY WISE, WAS FURNISHED LATER. IN THAT BIFURCATION, AN AMOUNT OF RS.15.22 CRORES WAS DISCLOSED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE OF RS.15.22 CRORES, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ADDITION. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT SUCH INCOME WAS DULY INCORPORATED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT AND TAX AND INTEREST ON SUCH DISCLOS ED INCOME WAS DULY PAID BEFORE PASSING OF THIS ORDER. SUCH INCOME WAS STATED TO BE EARNED FROM APPELLANTS BUSINESS. HENCE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 271AAA(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WERE FULFILLED AND PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WAS THEREFORE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS REGARD RELIA NCE IS PLACED ON DECISIONS IN CASES OF CONCRETE DEVELOPERS (3013) 22 ITJ 103 (NAGPUR TRIBUNAL) AND M/S PIONEER MARBLES AND INTERIORS P. LTD. (INCOME TAX A. NO.1326/KOL/2011). THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.1,52,28,000/- U/S 271AAA IS HEREBY DELETED. KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. 7 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT T HAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4), ASSESSEE HAD STATED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.10 THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT IS NOT REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY AD VERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE JUDGMENT AS RELIED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENT ION THAT PROVISIONS ARE CONSTRUED AS THEY ARE, IF THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN INTERPRETATION OF THE SAME. THE LD. DR EMPHASIZED ON THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW U/S 271AAA OF TH E ACT THAT IMMUNITY WOULD BE AVAILABLE IF THE ASSESSEE IN STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH, ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFIES THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED. FURTHER THE ASSES SEE IS REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED AND PAYS THE TAX, TOGE THER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT T HE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH STATED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WA S DERIVED AND ALSO THE TAX HAD BEEN PAID THEREON BUT NOT HING IS ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCO ME KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. 8 WAS DERIVED. HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RITU SINGAL(SUPRA). 9. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THIS ARGUMENT OF LD. DR IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132( 4), SHRI MANISH KALANI OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY STATED THAT ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF INCOME OF RS.30,00,00,000/- TO CO VER AND REPRESENT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME, RECEIPTS, DISCREPANCY OR DISALLOWANCE OR ANY VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THINGS, MONEY JEWELLERY, DOCUMENTS OF PAPER FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, SUCH AMOUNT HAS BE EN DERIVED FROM OUR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. FROM THE STATEM ENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY STAT ED TO HAVE EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME WAS DERIVED. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGG ESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME WAS DERIVED AS PER SECTION 132(4)(II). FURTHER , LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE AO CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTI ATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS DERIVED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASES O F SMT. PADMA KALANI, SMT. MANISHA KALANI, SMT. NAMITA KALANI IN ITA NOS.105 TO 108/IND/2014 UNDER THE IDENT ICAL KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. 9 FACTS THIS TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE IS SQUARELY COVE RED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SMT. PADMA KALANI L/H OF LATE SHRI PREM SWROOP KALANI. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITANO.105/IND/2014 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SMT. PADMA KALANI HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT WAS RECORDED ON 27.04.2009 FROM SHRI MANISH KALANI, WHEREIN IN REPL Y TO QUESTION NO. 10 , HE ON BEHALF OF ALL THE INDIVI DUALS OF KALANI FAMILY GROUP AND KALANI GROUP OF COMPANIES H AD MADE A DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 30 CRORES, BY STATING THAT THIS AMOUNT COVERS AND REPRESENT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME RECEIPTS , DISCREPANCY OR DISALLOWANCES OR ANY VALUABLE ARTICL E OR THINGS , MONEY , JEWELLERY, DOCUMENTS OR PAPERS FOU ND / OR SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM OUR BUSINESS ACTIVITY. ACCORDINGL Y, WE WILL DECLARE THE AMOUNT/INCOME IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE` S RETURN FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AS PER AND SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION AVAILABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER, IN CONTINUATION TO THIS DISCLOSURE, SHRI P. S. KALANI, MAIN PERSON OF THE G ROUP HAS FILED A LETTER DTD. 13.10.2009 TO ADDL. DIT(INV .) INDORE FOR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPANIES GIVING BIFURCATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE INDIVIDUALS HAND AND COMPANIES . THE LD. CIT (A) AP PEAL OBSERVED THIS LETTER WAS AN EXTENSION OF STATEMENT U/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. 10 132(4) RECORDED DURING SEARCH. WE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED UNDISCLOSED INCO ME IN SEARCH PROCEEDING AND ALSO SPECIFIED MANNER IN WHICH THE SAID INCOME DERIVED BY CLAIMING THAT SAID INCOME WAS EARNED FROM BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THUS, T HE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE INCOME UNDER SECTION 132 (4) AND DISCLOSED THE SAME IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FI LED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. W E ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID DUE TAXES WITH INTEREST THORN. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. I N VIEW OF SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FULFILLED THE CONDITION LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 271AAA (2) OF THE ACT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE DISCLOSURE DURING SEARCH AND SPECIFIED MANNER IN WHICH INCOME WAS EARNED IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) RECORDED FROM SHRI MANISH KALANI ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP. OUR VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY DECIS ION OF COORDINATED BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK KUMA R SHARMA VS. DCIT (2012)31 CCH310 (CUTTACK-TRIB)/77 DTR241/149 TTJ33 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED CONCEALED INCOME WHILE GIVING STATEMENT U/S. 132 DURING COURSE OF SEARCH A ND PAID TAX THEREON AND SHOWED SAID UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN RETURN FILED UNDER HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THESE RETURNS AND ACCORDING LY PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDERS. IT IS NOT A CASE OF REVEN UE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFIED THE MANNER IN W HICH INCOME IS DERIVED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID TAX ES WITH INTEREST ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THEREFORE, CAS E OF ASSESSEES FALL EXACTLY WITHIN PURVIEW OF SUB-SECTIO N (2) OF S. 271AAA. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED I N KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. 11 SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271AAA ARE NOT APPLICABL E. THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT CONSIDERED TH IS ASPECT OF THE ISSUE AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 271 AAA (2), THEY ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY. H ENCE, WE HEREBY SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S . 271AAA OF I T ACT IN THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEE `S B Y ALLOWING THEIR APPEALS. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS AS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OF THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN THE ABOVE CASES ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED. IT IS ALSO TRANSPIRED FROM RECORD THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY QUE RY CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V S. SMT. RITU SINGAL (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT HELD AS UNDER: 16. THAT THE INCOME WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY BROUGHT T O TAX PURSUANT TO THE DISCLOSURE MADE, WHICH WAS VOLUNTARY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IS STATING TH E OBVIOUS. THE ASSESSEE MERELY STATED THAT THE SUMS ADVANCES WERE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HOWEVER, SHE DID NOT SPECIFY HOW SHE DERIVED THAT INCOME AND WHAT HE AD KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. 12 IT FELL IN (RENT, CAPITAL GAIN, PROFESSIONAL OR BUS INESS INCOME OUT OF MONEY LENDING, SOURCE OF THE MONEY ET C.). UNLESS SUCH FACTS ARE MENTIONED WITH SOME SPECIFICI TY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED T HE REQUIREMENT THAT SHE, IN HER STATEMENT (UNDER SECTI ON 132(4) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED. SUCH BEING THE CAS E, THIS COURT IS OF OPINION THAT THE LOWER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES MISDIRECTED THEMSELVES IN HOLDING THAT THE CONDITIONS IN SECTION 271AAA(2) WERE SATISFIED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 11. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME PERTAINS TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHENDRA C. SHAH (2008) 172 TAXMAN 58. WE DO NOT SEEN ANY REASON TO DISTURB THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A). GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 .08.2 018. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 17 / 08/2018 CTX? P.S/. . . KALANI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. 13 COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUA RD FILE. BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY/DDO, INDORE