TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny basis at all and is therefore rejected. As for the other contention of assessee that there was no illegality in the order of the AO since the assessee had been consistently returning such 28% of net profit from his medical profession including dispensary income, we find is neither here nor there. The ld.counsel for the assessee has made this claim for the first time before us. This claim was not made before the ld.CIT. Further, no evidence has been filed to support his contentions that the assessee had been returning profit at a consistent rate in all the years. Therefore, this claim of the assessee, we also find, is baseless and is also rejected. No infirmity in the order of the CIT holding the assessment order passed by the AO, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g doubts with respect to the said claim of the assessee. As per the ld.CIT the assessment order was erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue. This aspect was confronted to the assessee during the revisionary proceedings, but he submitted a brief reply stating that no income on account of dispensary being run by the assessee is accounted for, since he is running free service there. The ld.CIT found no merit in this contention, noting that no evidence had been filed by the assessee in support of the same. Therefore, taking note of the fact that return of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason that large amount had not been credited to the profit loss account and the AO having not examined the issue of no income bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ried out at Rajasthan Hospital, if any. Hence self service contention does not have any substance. Assessee also failed to submit any specific reply whatsoever on the points raised in the above referred notice u/s 263. Being it a complete scrutiny, A.O. was required to examine the veracity of expenditure claimed with its nexus to the income offered in his return, which was not done by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the A.O. failed to carry out inquiry or verification in respect of expenses claimed for making a just and fair assessment of income of the assessee. 7. The Assessing Officer has, therefore, incorrectly accepted the facts submitted by you and passed the order u/s 143(3) on 31.12.2015. The assessment order is erroneous in so fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed therefore that there was palpably no error in the order of the AO having accepted the returned income of the assessee as such without inquiring into the issue of claim of dispensary expenses. 4. The ld.DR on the other hand relied on the finding of the ld.CIT. 5. We have heard both the parties, and we do not find any merit in the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee. The contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that the assessment order was not erroneous since the claim of dispensary expenses was examined during the assessment proceedings, we find, is only substantiated before us with some notices issued to the assessee during assessment proceedings, which were placed before us at paper book page no.114 to 118. The ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
