TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is 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. - ITA No.1093/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2023 - Shri George George K., Judicial Member And Ms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was in receipt of substantial professional income from Imperial Hospital and Research Center, besides receipt of professional income from others. The private practice to the extent referred to by the assessee is not humanly possible as the other activities itself would have taken up the time of the assessee. 9. In the circumstances, as I find the explanation of the assessee to be not satisfactory, the amount of Rs. 33,35,000 is treated as unexplained credits u/s 68 and added to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that he was working full time in Jayadeva Hospital as a Cardiologist Surgeon and with Manipal Hospital as a consultant. With regard to the AO s contention that the assessee would not have had time to practice since he was fully employed in Jayadeva Hospital the assessee submitted that he has retired from Jayadeva on 8.11.2016 and practiced full time in his own clinic. The assessee stated this as a reason for the consultancy income being lower during the FY 2015-16 which the AO quoted as one of the reasons for making the addition u/s.68. For the AO s contention t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er as per monthly statement of cash filed by the appellant, the cash availability on 08/11/2016 was Rs.35,52,885/- (also filed before AO). No supporting evidence was filed to substantiate figures given in these statements. AO did not examine these cash statements. As per the cash statement cash received after retirement from Jaydeva Hospital on 01/08/2016 to 31/10/2016 is Rs.14,88,060/- and no cash has been deposited in Bank during this period. Therefore, after giving allowance of personal and household expenses, it will be reasonable to consider that cash of Rs.13,00,000/- was available. As the appellant was in service and only doing nominal private practice, the cash received before 01/08/2016 must have been consumed for personal and household needs. Further for the sake of equity and justice, further allowance of Rs.4,00,000/- is allowed for past withdrawals and savings. Thus, by taking cash availability at Rs.17,00,000/- the addition is restricted to Rs.18,35,000/-. The grounds of appeal are Partly Allowed'. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- 1. The learned Assessing officer h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant. 7. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee had submitted the patient wise list and also the cash book which shows an accumulated balance of Rs.35,52,885 that would explain the source of cash deposited into the bank account. The ld. AR also submitted that the reason as quoted by the AO for making the addition u/s. 68 has also been rebutted by the assessee before the CIT(A) by submitting the necessary evidence with regard to the fact that the assessee has resigned from Jayadeva from 1.8.2016 and that he practised in his own clinic. The ld AR further submitted that the assessee has already included the impugned addition as part of its income from profession while filing the return of income and therefore the addition made u/s. 68 would amount to double taxation. In this regard, the ld. AR drew our attention to the return of income filed by the assessee for the AY 2017-18 wherein the consultancy charges received have been offered to tax (page 45 to 48 of PB). The ld. AR further submitted that the accounts of the assessee are subject to audit and the AO did not reject the books of accounts. It is therefore contended that the AO ought not to have made the addition u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld result in taxing the impugned amount twice, once as a consultancy income and secondly as an addition under section 68 of the Act. 10. We notice that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri. Pukhraj vs ACIT (ITA No.43/Bang/2022 dated 19.07.2022) has considered a similar issue and held that - 9.******* The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Singhal Exim Pvt. Ltd., [ITA No.228/2020 dated 22/02/2021] on similar issue took the view that the addition under section 68 of the Act is contradictory to the stand taken while accepting the business income and that the amount in question have already been charged to the income of the assessee, cannot be taxed again under section 68 of the Act. 10. The Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. reported in 84 Taxman 146 on identical facts took the view that when cash sales are admitted and income from sales are declared as income, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assesses, that there was no reason to treat the cash deposits as income from undisclosed sources. The Hon ble Vishakapatna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
