Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that ; the appellate authorities misdirected themselves in holding that the conditions under S. 271AAA(2) were satisfied by the assessee. The second condition for availing of the immunity from penalty was that the assessee should have specified in the statement under S. 132(4) the manner in which such income stood derived. The assessee had merely stated that the sums advanced were undisclosed income. However, she had not specified how she had derived that income and under what head it fell (rent, capital gains, professional or business income out of money lending, source of money, etc.). Unless such facts were mentioned with some specificity, it could not be said that the assessee had fulfilled the requirement that she had in her statement under S. 132(4) , “substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived”. The order of the appellate authorities deleting the penalty was erroneous. ( AY.2009 -10)