9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as running the diagnostic lab from business premises of the assessee and sharing 70% of lab fees with the assessee which remain unaccounted and undisclosed at the time of survey. No doubt, these transactions were not recorded at the time of survey thus qualify as unrecorded transactions satisfying one of the essential conditions, at the same time, the assessee has provided the necessary explanation about the nature and source of such unrecorded transactions and the necessary nexus with assessee s business has been established, thus, it cannot be said that these are unexplained transactions thus, doesn t satisfy the second condition for invoking the deeming provisions of section 69-69B - AO has duly taken cognizance of the findings of the survey team, the documents found during the course of survey, the statement of the Shri Sandeep Singh, the surrender letter and the return of income and after examination thereof and due application of mind, the income has been rightly assessed under the head business income. We are of the considered view that the order so passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous due to lack of inquiry or for that matter requisite inquiry on the part of the AO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his practice for last many years. Other than the said profession, the assessee does not have any other source of income. The books of accounts of the assessee are duly audited by a Chartered Accountant and copy of audit report in Form 3CB-CD is forming part of paper book at Pg 5-27. 4. It was submitted that a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted by the Income Tax Authority on 30.08.2016 at the business premises of the assessee, where, to cover the discrepancies of profession, the assessee had surrendered an amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- on account of unexplained misc. advances and the surrender was made just to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigations and tax was also paid on the same at normal rates of tax. It was submitted that the said surrender of Rs. 90,00,000/- was made on account of Misc. Advances which were given out of suppressed professional receipts of the assessee. Moreover, there is no other source of income to the assessee except medical professional receipts and the advances were given out of professional receipts and therefore, tax on the same was paid at normal tax rates applicable to the assessee. 5. It was submitted that the assessee thereafter had filed his re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ender letter that tax shall be paid on such additional income as advance at normal tax rates. The copies of cheques of estimated amount of tax calculated at normal rates were also given to the department which were duly accepted by department and it depicts that surrender was made as a part of regular professional receipts of the assessee with the consent of the department at that time. It was submitted that after considering the reply filed by the assessee, the AO took a conscious decision based on the due application of mind and based on the in-depth verifications made by the AO, assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act wherein returned income of the assessee was accepted and surrendered income was accepted as part of business income. 8. It was submitted that thereafter, a proposal dated 21.10.2019 was sent by the DCIT-Circle Sangrur to the PCIT-Patiala to consider the case of the assessee for revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act on the issue that the assessee ought to have disclosed the unexplained income u/s 115BBE of the Act which would have resulted in an effective tax rate of 77.25% and consequent to that, the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressed receipts of the profession. Referring to the statement of Sh. Sandeep Singh proprietor of a diagnostic lab running at the business premises of the assessee, it was submitted that in response to question no. 4, 9 10, it has been admitted by him that he is giving 70% of the lab receipts to the assessee on daily basis. Such commission income has not been shown by the assessee in his books of account and out of such suppressed income, misc. advances to the tune of Rs. 90,00,000/- have been given by the assessee. Since the said receipts are related to the profession carried on by the assessee, therefore, whatever has been surrendered by him is related to the medical profession carried on by the assessee. 11. Further, Ld. AR drew our attention to the seized material in the shape of Lab Register for the period 31.05.2016 to 29.06.2016 (Annexure-6) and 30.06.2016 to 18.07.2016 (Annexure -2) and copy of OPD Register from 31.05.2016 to 29.07.2016 and it was submitted that a perusal of these registers depicts as under: All the OPD Receipts, as per the OPD register, were duly accounted for in the books of accounts. The assessee has also received commission @ 70% of total receipts from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudicial to the revenue. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgments including the judgment of jurisdiction bench of ITAT wherein it has been held that the action of the ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law where the AO, after due application of mind during the course of assessment proceeding, took a possible view which is different from the PCIT and has accepted the additional income surrendered as a business income of the assessee: DEV RAJ HI TECH MACHINES LTD. vs. DCIT 83 Taxmann.com 15 (ASR Trib) SANJAY JAIN SONS vs. PCIT in ITA NO 141/CHD/2021 CIT vs. A.R. BUILDERS DEVELOPERS P. LTD. (Madras High Court) (2020) 425 ITR 272 (Mad) KUSUMLATA SONTHALIA vs. PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) (2020) 82 ITR (Trib)382 PCIT vs. DECCAN JEWELLERS P LTD. 132 Taxmann.com 73(AP) M/S VENUS TEXSPIN LTD. vs. PCIT in ITA No. 793/Chd/2017 PRAMOD KESHARICHAND SHAH vs. PCIT in ITA no. 43/SRT/2018 15. It was submitted that based on the above judgments, merely because the AO has not put up the issue in detail in the assessment order does not mean that the issue has not been verified in detail by him. In the case of assessee, specific queries were raised on the issue under consideration and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the nature and source of the income surrendered during the course of survey has been duly explained and the case of the assessee is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Chandigarh Benches in case of M/s Surya Hatchery Vs. Pr. CIT (in ITA No. 317/Chd/2022 dt. 07/12/2022), in case of Neelkanth Hatcheries Vs. Pr. CIT (in ITA No. 318/Chd/2022 dt. 07/12/2022), in case of Gandhi Ram Vs. Pr. CIT (in ITA No. 121/Chd/2021 dt. 04/08/2022), and decision of Coordinate Delhi Benches in case of Shri Balwinder Singh Vs. PCIT (in ITA No. 570/Del/2022.). 20. Per contra, the Ld. CIT/DR has relied on the findings of the Ld. PCIT. It was submitted that during the course of survey, the assessee had surrendered an amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- which is in the nature of undisclosed advances which were not accounted for in the books of accounts. It was submitted that assessee in his return of income has shown the surrendered income as business income and has paid taxes as per normal slab rate. It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to submit any explanation for showing the surrendered income as normal business income. It was submitted that the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urused the material available on record. Recently, we have decided a similar matter in case of Shri Parmod Singla, Prop. M/s Singla Wire Allied Products vs ACIT (Supra) wherein we have discussed the matter in detail including the various authorities quoted at the Bar and it would be relevant to refer to the discussion therein which are equally relevant in the instant case and the same is reproduced as under: 13. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. The genesis of the present case lies in the survey operations u/s 133A conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 8/07/2016 wherein the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs 84.80 lacs, thereafter the return of income filed by the assessee on 23/03/2018 was selected for compulsory manual scrutiny as per CBDT guidelines presumably to examine whether the assessee has honoured the surrender so made at the time of survey while filing his return of income, as also evident from the conduct of the assessment proceedings by the AO in terms of issuing the show-cause and seeking comments of the assessee on the amount so surrendered during the course of survey and subsequent passing of the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estments are not recorded in the books of accounts so maintained by the assessee, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation so offered is not found satisfactory in the opinion of the AO. Similarly, for the deeming provisions of section 69A to be attracted, there has to be a finding that the assessee was found to be owner of cash so found at the time survey, such cash has not been recorded in the books of accounts so maintained by the assessee, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the cash or the explanation so offered is not found satisfactory in the opinion of the AO. 16. Recently, in case of Surender Kumar others (ITA No. 398/Chd/2022), the Coordinate Chandigarh Benches has held that there is difference between the undisclosed income and unexplained income and the deeming provisions are attracted in respect of undisclosed income however, the condition before invoking the same is that the assessee has either failed to disclose the nature and source of such income or the AO doesn t get satisfied with the explanation so offered by him and the relevant findings read as under: 10. We have c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome to be taxed u/s 68 to 69D, as the case may be, it should not only be the undisclosed income but the essential condition is that the assessee has failed to disclose the nature and source of such undisclosed income or that the explanation offered by the assessee is not found satisfactory by the AO. In the case in hand, as noted above, the AO duly made enquiries from the assessee as to the nature and the source of the aforesaid surrendered income and has also show caused the assessee as to why the same should not be charged at a higher rate of tax as per provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. The ld. AO after considering the submissions and explanations of the assessee accepted the contention of the assessee that the surrendered income was out of the business income of the assessee. The perusal of the impugned order of the ld. PCIT would show that the ld. PCIT has not pointed out as to why the explanation offered by the assessee to the AO was not satisfactory and further what more enquiries are required to be conducted in this case, which the AO had failed to conduct. The ld. PCIT has simply based his opinion and order on the Audit Objections/Report as pointed out even in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturing process. In Question No. 10, he was asked by the survey team that as per assessee s books of account, there was cash in hand of Rs. 66,400/- however on physical verification, Rs. 10,46,000/- is found from your business premises thus there is excess cash of Rs. 9,80,000/- and the assessee was asked to explain the discrepancy. In response, the assessee submitted that at this point in time, he was not in a position to explain the said discrepancy found in cash and offered the difference of Rs. 9,80,000/- for taxation. In Question No. 11, the survey team noted that one note pad (katcha) was found during the course of survey and advance to various persons to the tune of Rs. 55,00,000/- has been found noted therein and the assessee was asked to explain the nature of these advances. In response, the assessee submitted that these advances relates to his business activity, however he is not in a position to explain the same at this moment of time and to buy peace of mind, he offered this amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- for taxation for the F.Y. 2016-17 pertaining to A.Y 2017-18. In Question No. 12, the survey team stated that stock to the tune of Rs. 17,38,400/- has been found as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is clearly emerging that the source of such income is from his business operations. There is a clear statement of the assessee that the advances are related to his business, however since the same have not been recorded in the books of accounts, he has offered the same to taxation. Similarly, the stock physically found has been valued and then, compared with stock as recorded in the books of accounts, thus, there is clear nexus of stock with the assessee s business. The statement of the assessee is available on record and related documents so found during the course of survey are stated to be in possession of the Revenue authorities. Apparently, the AO has failed to take into consideration the statement of the assessee recorded during the course of survey holistically, and other documents and findings of the survey team which are very much part of the records. Following the surrender so made during the course of survey, the assessee has honored the surrender so made and offered the additional income as business income in his return of income and paid due taxes thereon. 20. In our view, what is relevant before invoking the deeming provisions is not just the factum of survey action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by the assessee, the deeming provisions are attracted by default and by virtue of the same, provisions of section 115BBE are attracted. The ld PCIT has to record his specific findings as to the applicability of the relevant provisions and how the explanation called for and offered by the assessee is not acceptable in the facts of the present case which is clearly absent in the instant case. Therefore, where the ld PCIT himself is not clear about the applicability of relevant provisions and in the same breath holding the Assessing officer to task by not invoking the said provisions is clearly shooting in the dark which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the order so passed therefore cannot be held as erroneous in the eyes of law. 22. In case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal Vs. DCIT (Supra), briefly the facts of the case were that during the course of survey under section 133A which was carried out at the premises of the assessee, excess stock of gold and silver ornaments were found and in the return of income subsequently filed by the assessee, he had included the value of excess stock as part of closing stock inventory. However the AO observed that the said disclosure was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edly claimed that unaccounted business income is invested in stock and there is no amount separately taxable under section 69. The department has ignored this claim of the assessee and sought to tax the difference between book-stock and physical-stock as unaccounted investment under section 69 without considering the claim of the assessee that first the business receipt has to be considered and then investment should be treated as coming out of such unaccounted income. The difference in stock so worked out by the authorities below had no independent identity of its own and it is part and parcel of entire lot of stock. The difference between declared stock in the books and what is physically found would only be a mathematical expression in terms of value and not a separate independent identifiable asset. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an undisclosed asset existed independently. Once this is so then what is not declared to the department is receipt from business and not any investment as it cannot be co-related with any specific asset. 13. Thus in a case where source of investment/expenditure is clearly identifiable and alleged undisclosed asset has no independent existen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly. 15. In view of the above, AO is directed to consider the sum of Rs. 8,10,011/- as undisclosed business income assessable under the head business and other two sums under section 69. The business income including application of section 40(b) has to be considered accordingly. For calculation of income in view of our above observations, we restore the matter to the file of AO. 23. In the instant case as well, we find that the difference in stock so found out by the authorities has no independent identity and is part and parcel of entire stock, therefore, it cannot be said that there is an undisclosed asset which existed independently and thus, what is not declared to the department is receipt from business and not any investment as it cannot be co-related with any specific asset and the difference should thus be treated as undeclared business income. 24. Following the said decision of the Coordinate Ahmedabad Bench, the Jaipur Bench in case of DCIT Vs. Shri Ram Narayan Birla (Supra) has taken a similar view holding that the excess stock so found during the course of survey was part of the stock and the Revenue has not pointed out the excess stock has any nexus with any other recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, we do not find any fault with the decision of the ld. CIT (A) directing the AO to treat the surrendered amount as excess stock qua the excess stock found. 25. Thereafter, the Coordinate Jaipur Benches in case of Bajargan Traders Vs. ACIT (Supra) has similarly held as under: 2.10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. During the course of survey, the assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs. 70,04,814/- towards investment in stock of rice which had not been recorded in the books of accounts. Subsequently, in the books of accounts, the assessee has incorporated this transaction by debiting the purchase account and crediting the income from undisclosed sources. In the annual accounts, the purchases of Rs. 70,04,814/-were finally reflected as part of total purchases amounting to Rs. 33,47,19,658/- in the profit and loss account and the same also found included as part of the closing stock amount to Rs. 1,94,42,569/-in the profit/loss account since the said stock of rice was not sold out. In addition to the purchase and the closing stock, the amount of Rs. 70,04,814/- also found credited in the profit and loss account as income fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs as additional income during the course of survey conducted at its premises on account of following heads: (i) Discrepancy on account of cash found Rs. 9 lacs (ii) Discrepancy on cost of construction of building Rs. 21 lacs (iii) Discrepancy in stock Rs. 10 lacs (iv) Discrepancy in advances and receivable Rs. 30 lacs 11. These facts have not been disputed by any one at any stage. The only issue to be considered by us is whether the income of Rs. 70 lacs surrendered is to be taxable as business income or income from other sources or as deemed income under sections 69A, 69B and 69C of the Act as held by the Assessing Officer. A number of judicial pronouncements have been cited during the course of hearing, however, we have to bow down to the proposition laid down by the Jurisdictional Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd.(supra) since this is the only judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court which were brought to our notice. 12. On perusal of the said judgment, we find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee, that the only issue in that case was the taxability of cash surrendered during the course of survey, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pages 27, 28, 31 and 33, which were not recorded in the regular books of the assessee and were subsequently surrendered stating that these entries were unaccounted sundry receivables being surrendered as income under the head business, to buy piece of mind and subjected to no penalty and further that the losses incurred by the assessee in the impugned year will be adjusted against this surrendered income. The relevant facts as stated by the CIT(A) in para 9 of his order and which are not disputed, are reproduced hereunder: 9. Adverting now to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that when survey proceedings were conducted at the business premises of the appellant company, a pocket diary was found from the accounts section which contained entries of receivables amounting to Rs. 1.25 crores on page nos. 27, 28, 31 and 33, which were not recorded in the regular books of accounts. When these entries were confronted to the appellant company while recording the statement on 15/09/2012, it was stated: that these entries are sundry receivables which has not been accounted for in the books of accounts and in order to buy peace of mind, the same is surrendered as income under the head b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Rs. 60 lacs in Kothi at Sukhmani Enclave in the name of Smt. Rekha Miglani; (ii) Sundry creditors and advances received from customers amounting to Rs. 132 lacs; (iii) Gross profit on sale out of books amounting to Rs. 198 lacs and; (iv) surrender to cover miscellaneous discrepancies in loose papers etc. amounting to Rs. 10 lacs. 24. As far as the surrender made on account of investment in Kothi of Rs. 60 lacs, neither is the same disclosed in the books of the assessee nor source of the same disclosed. Therefore, the same is to be assessed as deemed income u/s 69 of the Act. The same applies to the surrender of Rs. 10 lacs made to cover the miscellaneous discrepancies in loose paper of Rs. 10 lacs. Neither the nature of the discrepancies, nor any source relating to the same has been disclosed and, therefore, the same is also to be assessed as deemed income u/ss 69, 69A, 69B and 69C of the Act. 25. As far as the surrender of Rs. 132 lacs made on account of sundry creditors and advances received from customers and Rs. 198 lacs on account of gross profit on sale out of the books, both of them clearly are in relation to the business carried on by the assessee and are thus in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilver articles and during the search and seizure operation u/s 132, excess stock was found to be declared and the assessee had submitted that excess stock was result of suppression of profit from business over the years and the same had not been kept identified separately and the AO had duly considered and accepted the assessee s explanation that investment in excess stock was to be treated as business income, the revisional powers invoked by the Principal Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act were not correct in the eyes of law. 10.19 The ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Famina Knit Fabs Vs. ACIT reported in (2019) 176 ITD 246 (Chd-Trib) has held that, wherein during the course of survey, a surrender was made by the assessee on account of debtors / receivables which was based on a diary found during the course of survey and the Revenue had accepted that the surrender was on account of receivables, it followed that the debtors were generated from the sales made by the assessee during the course of carrying on the business of the assessee which was not recorded in the books of the assessee. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT went on to further hold that though the said income was not re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respectfully state that judgement of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd (supra) would not apply on the facts of the present case. 10.23 Accordingly, keeping in view the various judicial precedents as cited above and respectfully following the same, we hold that the AO could not have legally invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act in the present case and further the Ld. CIT(A) was also not legally correct in upholding of the application of provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, ground Nos. 8 and 9 are also allowed. 31. Now, coming to the decision of Kim Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 456 (P H). Briefly the facts of the case were that the survey under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee and during the course of survey, cash amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- was found which was surrendered by the assessee for A.Y 2006-07 and another amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was surrendered for A.Y. 2005-06 on account of sundry credits, repair to building and advances to staff. The matter pertaining to A.Y 2006-07 came up for consideration before the Coordinate Chandigarh Benches and taking n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss determined for the year is not allowed to be setoff against such deemed income included in the books of account. The alternative plea of the assessee of assessing the income under the head income from other sources and allowing set off of losses u/s 71 of the Act also fail in view of the above. 9. The learned AR for the assessee had placed reliance in CIT Another Vs. S.K.Srigiri Bros. (supra) for the proposition that even in cases of survey, the additional income surrendered is includible as income from business. In the facts of that case, we find that the Tribunal after considering the records and statement given by the partners of the assessee firm, on facts, came to the conclusion that assessee had received additional income from business onl y and not from other sources. The said conclusion of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT another vs. S.K.Srigiri Bros. (supra) and the remuneration paid to the partners was held allowable against the additional income form business. The said precedent has been taken note of by the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court. 10. In the facts of the present case, we find that assessee during the course of survey had s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sells aluminum and copper wires and all along, the same is his only source of income and thereafter, he has been confronted with discrepancies in terms of cash found excess as compared to what has been recorded in the books of accounts, certain advances relating to his business written in a rough diary and excess value of stock as compared to what has been recorded in the books of accounts. Therefore, we find that the assessee has been confronted with not just the discrepancy so found during the course of survey but the nature and source thereof during the course of survey proceedings and it is clearly emerging that the source of such income is from his business operations. Thus, the decision of the Hon ble High Court, being rendered in the specific facts and circumstances of the said case, doesn t support the case of the Revenue in the instant case. 33. In light of aforesaid discussion and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and following the decisions supra, the income of Rs 84,80,000/- surrendered during the course of survey cannot be brought to tax under the deeming provisions of section 69 and 69A of the Act and the same has been rightly offered to tax u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 263 suffers from serious fallacies in the sense that the unexplained income found and surrendered during the course of survey proceedings have been sought to be brought to tax straightway under section 115BBE of the Act. And if we look at the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act, it provides that where the total income of the assessee includes any income refer to in section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D which is either reflected in the return of income furnished by the assessee or determined by the AO, the income tax payable shall be at the rate specified therein. Therefore, for section 115BBE, which talks about specified rate of tax, to be applicable in the instant case, the deeming provision of Section 68 to 69D needs to be satisfied at first instance and only in those cases where the deeming provisions are applicable, the tax rate as specified in Section 115BBE of the Act can be applied. Further if we look at the deeming provisions, which apparently does not found mention in the show cause notice issued by the Ld. Pr. CIT, it provides that where the assessee has made any investment or advances which are not recorded in the books of accounts and the assessee offer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As we have held in case of Gandhi Ram Vs. Pr. CIT(supra), the Ld. Pr. CIT has to record specific findings as to the applicability of the relevant deeming provision and how the explanation called for and filed by the assessee is not acceptable in the facts of the present case and which is clearly absent in the instant case. There is no inquiry or investigation which has been conducted by the Ld. Pr. CIT and there is no positive evidence brought on record as to why the deeming provision read with section 115BBE of the Act are applicable in the instant case. Therefore in absence of clear cut findings recorded by the Ld. Pr. CIT as to how the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the findings of the Ld. Pr. CIT deserves to be set aside. 30. Having said that, let s look at the nature and source of income surrendered and the explanation submitted by the assessee during the course of survey and whether the matter has been inquired into by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings or not. 31. At the outset, it is noted that as per records, there is no statement of the assessee which has been recorded at the time of survey. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in income tax return and in account books in professional receipts and taxes have been duly deposited thereon. 33. We therefore find that the assessee has been asked specific questions not just regarding the discrepancy found during the course of survey but the nature and source thereof during the course of survey and it is clearly emerging that nature of such advances is unaccounted business advances and the source of such income so surrendered is assessee s share of diagnostic lab fees received from Shri Sandeep Singh who was running the diagnostic lab from business premises of the assessee and sharing 70% of lab fees with the assessee which remain unaccounted and undisclosed at the time of survey. No doubt, these transactions were not recorded at the time of survey thus qualify as unrecorded transactions satisfying one of the essential conditions, at the same time, the assessee has provided the necessary explanation about the nature and source of such unrecorded transactions and the necessary nexus with assessee s business has been established, thus, it cannot be said that these are unexplained transactions thus, doesn t satisfy the second condition for invoking the deeming pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
