9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee 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 Tax Act, 1961 whereas detailed enquiries were made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 into by the assessing officer during assessment proceedings. The factual position is as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 interference in the assessment order is called for on the issue of cash deposited during demonization. 2. Salary paid to doctors: - The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so 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 deducting the TDS on 27 March 2017. It was also not a interest free loan or advance. Ledger account of both the parties enclosed, (see page 46 to47)" 4. Apart from that, the Assessee also furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 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 to 8.11.2016, i. e during the pre-demonetization period were high, whereas, the number of entries during demonetization period were comparatively less and that the number of entries during the pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act was in respect of 'the high value receipt of cash shown from third parties in response to data and payment of tax in cash during demonization period'. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
