Held that  the appeal, that the Commissioner (Appeals) had returned a finding that the surrender made by the assessee as apparent from the statement of the partner S recorded under section 132(4) of the Act was made to cover any discrepancy in the documents and books seized during the course of search, work-in-progress and stock. The Commissioner (Appeals) further held that in the absence of any discrepancy pointed out, the assessee’s admission of undisclosed income did not fall in the definition of “undisclosed income” which was the very basis for giving immunity from penalty under section 271AAA of the Act, as all the sub-clauses of section 271AAA of the Act are related to “undisclosed income”. The Commissioner (Appeals) had therefore rightly held that no specific discrepancy had been pointed out and merely because surrender had been made by the assessee to cover any potential discrepancy, would not mean that it fell in the definition of undisclosed income as so defined. In spite thereof, the Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the penalty holding that it was for the assessee to demonstrate that income surrendered fell in the definition of undisclosed income as so defined. It was for the Assessing Officer to record a specific finding that undisclosed income as defined had been found based on tangible verifiable material found during the course of search and the onus was on the Assessing Officer (and not on the assessee) to satisfy the conditions before the charge for levy of penalty was fastened on the assessee. The Assessing Officer  had to record a specific finding as to the fulfilment of conditions specified therein which apparently had not been fulfilled in the instant case. Penalty is deleted. (AY.2011-12)