SANDIP JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA

ITA 2483/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sandip Jhunjhunwala, a key person of the REI Group, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) under section 271AAA for the assessment year 2012-13. The penalty was based on undisclosed income from commodity profits and share profits amounting to approximately 14.40 crore, which was disclosed voluntarily during a search operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined whether the conditions for imposing a penalty under section 271AAA were met, considering the disclosures made by the assessee during the search and the subsequent tax payments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831506 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: SPS Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ACIT v. Satyapal Wassan, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport, CIT v. Sarda Rice and Oil Mills, CIT vs. M. Pachamuthu, CIT vs. M. George & Brothers, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajiv Garg, CIT vs. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.B. CHAKRABORTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: S.K. TULSIAN; SONAM BAJORIA; ARS
• Keywords: Set aside; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Document seized; Documents seized; Search and seizure; Bogus
• Section: 148; 143(3); 132; 69C; 133A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No. 2483/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year:2012-13) Sandip Jhunjhunwala, 10/4, Alipore Park Place, Alipore, Kolkata-700027, West Bengal Vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3) Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AFHPJ6070K Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsian & Ms. Sonam Bajoria, ARs Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR Date of hearing: 06.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 20.01.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 03.09.2025 for the AY 2012-13. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of penalty of ₹1,44,05,125/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO u/s 271AAA of the Act, whereas during the course of assessment proceedings as well as during penalty proceedings, the modus operandi of earning the undisclosed income from commodity profits of ₹4,40,05,942/- and profit in shares of ₹10,00,45,313/- aggregating to ₹14,40,51,253/- with details of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 2483/KOL/2025 Sandip Jhunjhunwala; A.Y. 2012-13 utilization of such funds have been provided and accordingly, the penalty levied is invalid and bad in law. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a key personal of REI Group of companies. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 15.06.2011 and subsequent dates on concerns of REI group at various premises in Kolkata and New Delhi. A survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was also carried out at various places. The assessee being a key person of the group also covered under the said search. During the course of search several books of accounts and other documents were found and impounded. During the course of search , the assessee voluntarily disclosed in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act an amount of ₹14,14,51,253/- as his net undisclosed income. The assessee submitted that the undisclosed income was derived from the commodity profit in shares. Pertinent to note that the assessee filed the return of income on 31.07.2012, showing total income of ₹16,79,80,980/-, which was inclusive of undisclosed amount of ₹14,40,51,253/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.03.2014, after examining the seized documents and accordingly, the AO accepted the disclosure made by the assessee during the search. The assessee duly explained the nature and source of the income while making the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. However, the ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act. The penalty order u/s 271AAA of the Act was passed by the ld. AO on 29.09.2014, by rejecting the contention of the assessee that the undisclosed income of ₹14,40,51,253/- was not backed by any material found during the course of search and the ld. AO in fact recorded that the search Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 2483/KOL/2025 Sandip Jhunjhunwala; A.Y. 2012-13 document marked as PSRD/3, contained the details of transactions in future and options in shares and commodity profit earned by the assessee and finally, the penalty was imposed at the rate of 10% of the said income equal to ₹1,44,05,125/- vide order dated 29.09.2014. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we note that the ld. CIT (A) noted that the assessee has disclosed an amount of ₹14,40,51,253/- during search. While filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, the said amount was included to the total income and taxes were paid accordingly. The contention of the assessee was that the disclosure was totally voluntarily and without any basis which was rejected by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) further noted that PSRD/3, a seized material contained the details of transactions in the Future and Options in shares and commodity profits earned by the assessee. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the assessee that it was a voluntarily disclosure. Finally, the order of ld. AO was affirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 5.1. We further note that during the course of search, the assessee made a disclosure of ₹14,40,51,253/- on account of income earned from future and options in shares and commodity profit earned by the assessee. The ld. AO imposed penalty u/s 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). For the purpose of proper understanding of Provisions of Section 271(2)AAA of the Act, the same are extracted below:- “271AAA. (1) …………… Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 2483/KOL/2025 Sandip Jhunjhunwala; A.Y. 2012-13 (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply if the assessee,— (i) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived; (ii) substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and (iii) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income.” 5.2. A perusal of the above shows that no penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act was imposable where the above three conditions are satisfied. In the present case the assessee during the course of search admitted to undisclosed income and specified manner in which the income was derived and the assessee proved the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived and paid the taxes there on together with interest while filing the return of income, then no penalty is imposable u/s 271AAA of the Act. We have perused the documents furnished by the assessee in the paper book and find that the assessee has stated the manner of earning such income and the source from which the said income was earned and duly paid taxes thereon, which has been acknowledged by the ld. AO in the assessment order as well as by the ld. CIT (A) in the appellate order. Therefore, all the three criteria as envisaged u/s 271AAA(2) of the Act are satisfied and therefore , no penalty is imposable u/s 271AAA of the Act. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate bench in case of SPS Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1391 & 1414/KOL/2011, for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 30.06.2015, the operative part of the decision is extracted below:- “7. Coming to assessee’s appeal, as regard to the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271AAA of the Act on undisclosed income of Rs.1,13,65,623/-, the entire premises of the AO was that none of the conditions specified u/s. 271AAA(2) of the Act is not satisfied. According Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No. 2483/KOL/2025 Sandip Jhunjhunwala; A.Y. 2012-13 to AO, the undisclosed income is neither admitted or disclosed u/s. 132(4) of the Act nor subsequently included in the return of income filed by the assessee. According to AO, this undisclosed income was merely detection by the Revenue. The assessee before us explained in respect to the payment of Rs.15,77,307/- which is recorded in page No. 23 of seized document UKS1. According to AO, the assessee has recorded a sum of Rs.1,54,620/- in its disclosure petition and the balance Rs.14,22,687/- was not disclosed. It was explained that as per the disclosure petition the assessee had shown an income of Rs.1,54,620/- with reference to page No. 23 of the seized document UKS1. In arriving at such profits, payment of Rs.55 lakhs has been considered. Thus, the allegation of the AO that a sum of Rs.1,54,620/- was only disclosed is completely contrary to the facts of the case. The assessee alternatively argued that the aforesaid payments of Rs.14,22,687/- were not considered in the disclosure petition, then in that case said payment should reduce the income voluntarily disclosed by the assessee during the course of search i.e. Rs.6.84 crores. The said income was represented by cash disclosed in the balance sheet of the assessee and as accepted by the AO. Ld. counsel for the assessee before us drew us the provision of Sec. 69C of the Act and argued that from a plain reading of the Sec. 69C of the Act, the addition can be made only if the assessee cannot explain the source of the expenditure. In the instant case, the source of the expenditure of Rs.14,22,687/- clearly stands explained by the disclosed income of Rs.6.84 crores available to the assessee in cash. Thus, no addition u/s. 69C of the Act can be made. Further, he stated that page No. 23 of the UKS1 is a dumb document. The document merely has some figures written on it. The document nowhere mentions the nature of the transactions, the parties to the transaction, the period of transaction etc. Nothing can be gathered from the said document. Thus no addition can be made on the said document. He explained the aforesaid seized document that it is apparent that cash expenses of Rs.13.50 lakh was incurred and paid to Liberty Marine. The same was added by the AO to the income of the assessee disregarding the fact that said sum was already considered in its disclosure petition, wherein Miscellaneous cash expense of Rs.25,41,155/- was disclosed to have been paid to Liberty Marine. But the assessee accepted the addition just to avoid lingering litigation but this is not subject-matter of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act 8. Similarly, w.r.t the addition of Rs.44,17,936/- being cash expenses as per the aforesaid seized document, Ld. counsel for the assessee explained that the said amount was considered in the disclosure petition of the assessee, wherein miscellaneous expenditure of Rs.101,36,805/- in connection with miscellaneous receipts of Rs.61 lakh was disclosed by the assessee. He argued that, if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the aforesaid expenses of Rs.57,7,936/- were not disclosed in the return, then, in that case said expense should reduce the income voluntarily disclosed by the assessee in curse of search i.e. Rs.6.84 crores. As already explained in para 4.3 above, the assessee had enough cash available to meet the said expense. Accordingly, no addition u/s. 69C of the Act can be made. 9. In respect to addition of Rs. 15 lakh the assessee explained that during the relevant FY it had paid transportation charges to Sampoorna Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vide cheques. The AO alleged that out of the total transportation charges paid by the assessee a sum of Rs.15 lakh was received back in cash on account of discounts offered by the transporter and accordingly expenses to the tune of Rs.15 lakh recorded in the books are bogus. He Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA No. 2483/KOL/2025 Sandip Jhunjhunwala; A.Y. 2012-13 contended that Shri Bipin Vohra, Chairman of the assessee company in his statement obtained in course of search accepted the said allegation. Reliance was also placed on page no. 7 of SPSG/2 and page No. 28 of SPSG/3. Ld counsel explained firstly to the seized documents relied upon by the AO and page No. 7 of SPSG/2 shows the details of cheques issued to various parties. Further, page No. 28 of SPSG/3 shows withdrawal of Rs.6.50 lakh from bank account of the assessee. The said document is the evidence of payment made to Sampoorna Logistics in cheque as transportation charges. They nowhere suggest cash receipt by the assessee. Hence, no addition can be made based on the said documents. Ld. counsel explained the statement of Shri Bipni Vohra, Chairman of the assessee-company, obtained in course of search, and clarified that his statement was recorded by the search party under duress and coercion. Thus, the statement made in course of search does not have much evidentiary value unless it is corroborated with other documentary evidences. For this Ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Departmental issued by CBDT vide Board’s letter No. F No.286/2/2003/IT(Inv) dated 11.03.2003 and the extract of which is as under:- Instances have come to the notice of the Board where the assessee have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during course of search and seizure and survey. Such confession, if not based on credible evidence, are altered/retracted by the concerned assessee while filing returns of income. In such circumstances, confessions in the course of search and seizure and survey operations do not serve any useful purpose. It is therefore advised that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before income tax department. Similarly while recording statements during curse of search and seizures and survey operations, no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary will be viewed adversely.” In view of the above, Ld. counsel for the assessee argued that the Board recognizes that forced statements are taken by the Authorities from assessee during search admitting or confessing to undisclosed income but according to him, such confession by an oral statements would not suffice unless there is enough evidence to corroborate such confession. In view of these, he argued that no document supporting cash receipt of Rs.15 lakh was found during the course of search and the entire statement of Shri Bipin Vohra. Accordingly, the penalty levied by the AO cannot be sustained. 10. In respect to addition of Rs.26.75 lakh, Ld. counsel for the assessee argued that this addition relates to seize document enclosed at page 65 of paper book. A perusal of the same shall clarify that the document nowhere mentions the period of the transaction. It merely records some transactions in the cash and bank column. Solely on this basis, the AO presumed that entries of Rs.640.25 on right hand side are cash payments of Rs.6.4025 crores and entries on the left hand side of Rs.667 represent cash receipts of Rs.6.67 crores. Accordingly he treated the net amount of Rs.26.75 lakh as undisclosed income and added the same to the income of the assessee. He explained that the said document is a dumb document since it is does not specify the period to which it pertains. Thus, it is not possible to trace out as to which set of transactions cumulate to the figures reflected in the page. Further, the seized document nowhere mentions any basis for Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 ITA No. 2483/KOL/2025 Sandip Jhunjhunwala; A.Y. 2012-13 deciphering the figures recorded in the said document. Thus, the AO was not justified in presuming that the figures in the seized document were in lakhs. Now, since the document is a dumb document no addition could have been made on that basis as already discussed in para 4.4 above. Moreover, the seized document does not constitute books of accounts of the assessee. It is merely a loose sheet of paper, which has no intrinsic value. Attention in this regard is invited to the definition of books of accounts u/s. 2(12A) of the Act: “Books or books of accounts” includes ledgers, day-books, cash books, account-books and other books, whether kept in the written form or as print-outs of data stored in a floppy, disc. Tape or any other form of electro-magnetic data storage device;” Thus, from the above, according to Ld. counsel of assessee it is clear that books of accounts include ledgers, cash books etc., the paper seized from the premises of assessee clearly does not fall within the definition of books of accounts. From a plain reading of the above, it is clear that undisclosed income means “any income represented by any entry in the documents found in course of search” which are not recorded in the books of the assessee. However, in the instant case of assessee, the addition I & II i.e. of cash expenses and payments of Rs.71,90,623/- was included in the disclosure petition and the return filed after search and accordingly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. Thus no penalty u/s 271AAA can be imposed on the said amount 11. From the above explanation of the assessee in regard to the addition of Rs.1,13,65,623/-, the same are more or less included in the disclosure petition of Rs.6.84 crores as against availability of cash. The items outside the disclosure of Rs.6.84 crores is only the expenses paid to Sampoorna Logistics and allegedly to received back in cash on account of discounts offered by Transport and added on the basis of the statement of Shri Bipin Vohra has never been confronted to the assessee and the statement is without any corroborative evidences. Moreover, the assessee has furnished explanation of the above entries added by the AO during the course of scrutiny proceedings and even in penalty proceedings. This was also explained before CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings qua the levy of penalty. In view of the above, now we have to discuss the case law of coordinate of ITAT Jabalpur Bench in the case of ACIT v. Satyapal Wassan 295 ITR (AT) 352 held that:- “A charge can be levied on the basis of document only when the document is a speaking one. The document should speak either out of itself or in the company of other material found on investigation and/or in the search. The document should be clear and unambiguous in respect of all the four components of the charge of tax. If it is not so, the document is only a dumb document. No charge can be levied on the basis of a dumb document. A document found during the course of a search must be a speaking one and without any second interpretation, must reflect all the details about the transaction of the assessee in the relevant assessment year. Any gap in the various components for the charge of tax must be filled up by the Assessing Officer through investigations and correlations with other material found either during the course of the search or on investigations. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 ITA No. 2483/KOL/2025 Sandip Jhunjhunwala; A.Y. 2012-13 The document was bereft of necessary details about the year of transaction, ownership, nature of transaction, necessary code for deciphering the figu9res. The Assessing Officer presumed that the transaction belonged to the financial year 1988-89 relevant to the assessment year 1989-90, that the figures mentioned in the document were advances made by the assessee, that the transactions belonged to the assessee, and that the transactions were in a code of lakhs and that the unit was the rupee. The Assessing Officer did not carry out any enquiry either during the course of search or during the course of assessment proceedings to find out the nature of transactions and the period in which those transactions were carried out; he had simply presumed that the figures were advances without there being any material on record to support such presumption. The Assessing Officer had drawn inferences, made presumptions, relied on surmises and thus made unsustainable additions.” In this case also the assessee has explained firstly that the payment of Rs.55 lakh is out of the availability of cash generated out of disclosure of Rs.6.84 crores. Even otherwise, the document page No. 23 of UKS/1 bears no date and does not mention the nature of the transaction and on the basis of conjecture and surmises presumption cannot be drawn that this is income. 12. Similarly Hon'ble Andhra High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport (1999) 238 ITR 177 (AP) held that:- “under the provisions of section 132(4) as it existed at the relevant time the question of examining any person by the authorised officer would arise only when he found such person to be in possession of any undisclosed money or books of accounts. But, in this case, it was admitted by the Revenue that on the dates of search, the Department was not able to find any unaccounted money, unaccounted bullion or any other valuable articles or things, nor any unaccounted documents nor any such incriminating material either from the premises of the company or from the residential houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were not found to be in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of each and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4) did not arise. The Explanation to section 132(4) permitting such examination came into effect only from April 1, 1980. Even if it were held that he statement of the managing director fell under the Explanation to section 132(4), the Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the statement of the managing director or that of the other partners had no evidentiary value as they were not supported by any documentary proof. No question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal.” 13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and legal position discussed above, the penalty to be levied for undisclosed income as per the provision of Sec. 271AAA of the Act, we have to understand the meaning of undisclosed income and the relevant provision define undisclosed income as under:- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 ITA No. 2483/KOL/2025 Sandip Jhunjhunwala; A.Y. 2012-13 “(a) “undisclosed income” means- (i) Any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of accounts or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132 which has- (A) Not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of accounts or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or (B) Otherwise not been disclosed to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of the search ; or” From the above, it is clear that undisclosed income means “any income represented by any documents” found during the course of search, which are not recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. In the instant case, the additions of cash expenses and payments of Rs.71,90,623/- is the result of cash available out of the disclosed cash of Rs.6.84 crores which was included in the disclosure petition. Further, addition of Rs.15 lakh on account of alleged cash receipts from Sampoorna Logistics, which was alleged to be reimbursement, it is clear that expenditure recorded in the books of accounts can be held to be undisclosed income of the assessee if the said expenditure is found to be false. It is the Department on whom, onus of proving that expenditure recorded in the books is bogus or false based on documentary evidences found in the course of search. Here in the present case, no documentary evidences establishing the falsity of claim of transportation charges paid to Sampoorna Logistics was found in the course of search. According to us the said expenditure cannot be held to be undisclosed income of the assessee for the purpose of levying penalty u/s. 271AAA of the Act. 14. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Sarda Rice and Oil Mills 117 ITR 917 (Cal) held:- “the ITO and the IAC had proceed entirely on the basis of the disclosure made by the assessee. The Tribunal had found as a fact that the disclosure had no evidentiary value and was nothing but a scrap of paper and the finding had not been challenged by the revenue as perverse or based on irrelevant evidence or no evidence at all. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the provisions of s. 271(1) were not attracted was not erroneous.” Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. M. Pachamuthu 295 ITR 502 (Mad) held:- “Mere addition agreed to by the assessee during the course of survey would not empower the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty under section 271(1)© of the Income-tax Act, 1961 … The fact that the assessee had agreed to additions to income was not proof of concealment.” Even Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. M. George & Brothers 59 CTR 298 (Kel) held that:- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 ITA No. 2483/KOL/2025 Sandip Jhunjhunwala; A.Y. 2012-13 “where the assessee for one reason or the other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of the assessee’s surrender will not be well-founded. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case the Court has to decide whether penalty is justified. It is always for the Revenu9e to bring the case under the ambit o sec. 271(1)© by establishing there is concealment on the part of the assessee. The Explanation to sec. 271(1)© inserted w.e.f. 1std April, 1964 merely raises a rebuttable presumption but the basic principle that there should be have been concealment still remains.” Further Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajiv Garg 313 ITR 256 (P&H) upheld the order of the Tribunal where it was observed that - Merely because an income has been offered by the assessee in response to the notice under section 148, it cannot be ipso facto inferred that the penal provisions of section 271(1)© are attracted. In order to apply the penal provisions of section 271(1)© it is to be necessarily inferred that there is positive act of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income by the assessee.” It is further held that “The Department had simply rested its conclusion on the act of the assessee of having offered additional income in the return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. As noted earlier, the additional income so offered by the assessee was done in good faith and, therefore, in our view, penalty under section 271(1)© of the Act could not be levied.” Further Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Haji Gaffar Haji Dada Chini 169 ITR 033 (Bom) held that:- “on the facts of the case, the Tribunal had taken a possible view on the question before it and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with its conclusion that the letter addressed by the assessee to the Income-tax Officer offering credits in respect of hundi loans for assessment and also stating that the penalty under section 271(1)© of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be decided on the merits, did not amount to an admission of concealment of income and the levy of penalty on such basis was liable to be quashed.” From the above, it is clear that penalty cannot be levied merely on the admission of the assessee and there must be some conclusive evidence before the AO that entry made in the seized documents, represents undisclosed income of the assessee. In the instant case, in respect to the amount of Rs.1,13,65,623/-, there is no evidence which proves that the entries recorded in the documents found during the course of search is over and above the income as declared by the assessee at Rs.6.84 crores as undisclosed income and accepted by Revenue. In view of the above, we delete the penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee. 15. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed” Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 ITA No. 2483/KOL/2025 Sandip Jhunjhunwala; A.Y. 2012-13 5.3. Similarly, in the case of Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT reported in (2012) 149 TTJ 36(CTK) (UO) it has been held that where the disclosure made u/s 132(4) of the Act is included in the return of income and taxes are paid , penalty is not leviable u/s 271AAA of the Act. 5.4. Since the facts of the assessee’s case are squarely covered in the aforesaid decisions, therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the penalty. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.01.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 20.01.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "