TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17 - 18, passed in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). 2. The brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a Doctor by profession. That during the impugned assessment year a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on his business premises on 30.08.2016. In consequence to the discrepancies found by the survey team the assessee surrendered a total amount of Rs. 50 lacs as under: Unexplained advances made = Rs. 40, 55, 000/- Unexplained cash in hand = Rs. 9,45,000/- Total = Rs. 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 un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Income Tax Act, 1961, and, thereby, setting aside the assessment already framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 29th March, 2019 to the file of the Assessing Officer. 2. That the Worthy PCIT, Patiala has failed to 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 Rs. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. 9. The primary contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee while challenging the findings of the Ld. Pr. CIT, was that the documents and material found during survey revealed the source of the surrender made as being from 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 payin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 40, 55,000/- They appear to be just two different sets of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 for the assessee, that the surrender specifically w....