TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g her revision jurisdiction. 2. The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. That order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh is against law and facts on the file in as much she has failed to show as to how the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer is erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That the Learned Pr. CIT, was not justified to hold that the necessary enquiries with respect to cash deposits, increase in salary, disallowance u/s 36(1)((iii), investments made with DLF for office space, etc. were not made by the Learned Assessing Officer while framing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich, the Assessee made the following submissions before the Ld. PCIT. " 4. The written submissions of the assessee as submitted on 10.03.2022 are reproduced as follows: - With reference to your notice for initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Income tax Act 1961 the assessee submits as under: - It is submitted that in this case the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act 1961. During assessment proceedings the complete books of accounts were produced before the assessing officer which includes cash book ledger etc., which duly examined by the assessing officer. Your good self has initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Income tax on certain issues which were not looked ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from 10-4-2016 to 31-03-2017 are also attached here with. There is also no variation in the daily receipts, your good self can go through the ledger accounts attached. a) OPD receipts Rupees 1,32,73,645/- b) Indoor receipts Rupees 92,99,800/- c) Lab receipts Rupees 19,72,180/- d) JSSK Scheme income Rupees 81,830/- e) Ultrasound income Rupees 94,83,970/- f) RSBY scheme Rupees 5,09,687/ - The total receipts of the assessee is rupees 3,45,22,112/-. At the same time he has declared the net income at rupees 1,48,33,94/- in the profit and loss account attached here with. (See page 2 to 40) If you go through the past history of the assessee he is among top tax payers. It is requested that no i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loss account except in the salary account. The assessee has only source of income from his profession, he has no other sources of income, In response on E- filing portal we have also filed the source "business receipts", how it appears as gift loans, we do not know. (See page 41 to 45) 3. Interest free advances to two parties:- It is submitted that the assessee advanced rupees 2,00,000/- to Garag Associates for the purchase of X Ray machine on March 30, 2017, it was not interest free loan or advance, the money was given in the end of the year and the X Ray plant was installed in the next financial year. Likewise rupees 4,01,325/- was given advance for the construction to Hans Raj Nayyar for the construction of building after deduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndoor receipts and ultrasound receipts. The Assessee, thus, has shown the total receipts during the year. The Ld. PCIT has also tabulated such receipts in a Chart in the impugned order. Nothing has been mentioned in the order of Ld. PCIT that the said receipts were non-verifiable. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand has supported the order of the Ld. PCIT. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. The Assessee had duly shown various receipts along with nature of receipts etc. and each and every entry of the said receipt had been furnished before the AO as well as before the PCIT. However, the Ld. PCIT further analyzing the said data observed that certain receipts during the period from 1.4.2011 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as failed to point out any discrepancy in the accounts of the Assessee, but only suspected the genuineness of the cash book by bifurcating the receipts between the different period of years, which, in our view, cannot be held to be justified for exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and thereby subjecting the Assessee to de novo assessment. 8. So far as the observation of the Ld. PCIT regarding certain increase in the salary of two employees and having made certain payments to DLF for office space at Delhi, disallowance use u/s 36(1)((iii) of the Act etc. were concerned, we find that the case of the Assessee was not selected for scrutiny on these issues. The only issue for which the case of the Assessee was selected for....