9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted so, the assessee cannot derive any benefit from a mere oral submission/statement made by him as the same is not sufficient to explain the source of advance. Therefore, this contention for the assessee is also rejected. Assessee that the assessee had paid advance taxes on the surrendered income at the normal rate is also of no relevance, in our view, since merely paying taxes at the normal rates on a particular income will not determine its character as being from explained sources. We are in agreement with the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO had accepted the surrendered income of the assessee as being from the business or profession without making any enquiries regarding the same despite the fact that the documents/material found during s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 30.08.2016. In consequence to the discrepancies found by the survey team the assessee surrendered a total amount of ₹ 50 lacs as under: Unexplained advances made = ₹ 40, 55, 000/- Unexplained cash in hand = ₹ 9,45,000/- Total = ₹ 50, 00, 000/- 3. The said amount was included as surrendered income in the Profit Loss Account of the assessee for the year and returned to tax under the head income from business and profession , paying taxes at the normal rate applicable to business income. The AO, in scrutiny assessment done u/s 143 (3) of the Act, accepted the same making only an addition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciate that the assessment was completed after due application of mind by the concerned AO and, therefore, the provision of section 263 are not applicable. 3. That the finding of the PCIT, about the sum of ₹ 50 lacs to the assessed u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE and to be charged to a special rate of tax is wholly misconceived and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That the case laws which have been cited by the PCIT, Patiala are not applicable to the facts of the case. 5. That the worthy PCIT, Patiala has erred in applying the (Explanation 2) to section 263 inserted w.e.f 01.06.2015 as the concerned Assessing Officer had duly made appropriate enquiries and applied his mind and assessed the income offered du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the medical profession of the assessee itself and the AO having applied his mind to it and also to the submissions of the assessee before him, had rightly formed the view that the surrendered income related to the profession of the assessee and assessed it as such. That the AO had also noted that the assessee had paid advance tax at normal tax rates. That therefore the order of the AO was not erroneous on account of having accepted the treatment of the surrendered income as business income of the assessee paying therefore taxes on the same at normal rates applicable. 10. We have carefully gone through all the documents and even the case laws referred to by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and after going through the same we are unabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the pages from 51 to 53 list certain card numbers with names of persons. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has stated on the basis of these documents that the amount of ₹ 40,55,000/- surrendered, relates to names of patients mentioned against their card numbers at pages 51 to 53. He has repeatedly asserted there being correlation between this alleged list of patients and the amount of ₹ 40, 55, 000/- as mentioned above. But there is nothing to suggest even the slightest of interconnection or interrelation between the two. The documents allegedly listing the card numbers and names of patients has no figures or amounts mentioned to suggest any amount having been collected from them, what to say of ₹ 40, 55,000/- They appear t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us at Paper Book page No.20 as under: 15. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has tried to drive home his arguments from the reply of the assessee to the question asked as above to him to explain the amount of ₹ 40,55,000/- noted in a notebook found during survey, as being surrendered as additional income of the assessee, as a pointer to the fact that it had been surrendered as a business income. 16. We are not convinced with the same. What transpires from a bare reading of the statement of the assessee is that he had merely made a surrender of ₹ 40,55, 000/- over and above his normal income for the year. Nothing more can be read into the statement more particularly to the effect, as canvassed by the Ld.Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
