Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 40 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - deposit of SBN during demonetization period by the AO on the ground that it would not have been humanly possible for the assessee to provide consultancy to patients when he is in full employment - as per DR consultancy receipts have been high from 1.4.2016 to 31.10.2016 i.e.pre-demonitisation period and that after this period the consultancy charges have substantially reduced - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while confirming the addition partially has done so for the reason that there has not been adequate withdrawals for personal expenses - as noticed that the revenue has not recorded any adverse factual finding with regard to the source for the cash deposited whereas the source for impugned addition is adequately evidenced by the assessee by way of patient wise list of daily receipt from consultation in order to support that it derived from the professional income. It is also noticed that the amount of consultancy receipts is already offered to tax by the assessee by reflecting the same in the P&L Account which are duly audited and this fact is not doubted by the lower authorities. In that case, if the cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act, then it would result in taxing the impugned amount twice, once as a consultancy income and secondly as an addition under section 68 of the Act. In assessee’s case we notice that the assessee has offered the impugned income to tax and that the lower authorities have not rejected the books of accounts. AR during the course of hearing submitted the returns filed for AY 2018-19 where the assessee has offered a similar amount to tax to substantiate that the assessee is receiving the income from consultation in the same range post retirement and that has been regularly offering the same to tax. Given the facts of the assessee’s case and considering the above decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal we are of the view that the assessee has discharged the onus by providing the necessary evidences and by offering the income to tax. Accordingly we hold that the addition made u/s 68 cannot be sustained and is therefore deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|