PRAMOD KUMAR,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 208/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 June 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 10 lacs surrendered income, arising from suppressed professional receipts, could not be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69A. It should be taxed as business income at normal rates, not under Section 115BBE.

What were the facts?

During a survey operation, two diaries were found at the assessee's clinic, indicating undeclared cash receipts from patients. The assessee, a doctor, surrendered an additional income of Rs. 10 lacs based on these diaries.

What were the issues?

Whether income surrendered due to suppressed professional receipts can be classified as unexplained investment. Applicability of Section 115BBE to such surrendered income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3),Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC’’ : DEHRADUN

Before: SH. YOGESH KUMAR US & SH. MANISH AGARWALSHRI PRAMOD KUMAR,

Hearing: 12/03/2026Pronounced: 05/06/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC’’ : DEHRADUN) BEFORE SH. YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.208/DDN/2025 (AY 2018-19) SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, Vs. DCIT/ACIT, 2-ANAND VIHAR, LANE NO. 1, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CIRCULAR ROAD, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MUZAFFARNAGAR 13-A, SUBHASH ROAD, UTTAR PRADESH-251001 DEHRADUN-248001 (PAN: ADKPK0532E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 12/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 05/06/2026

ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-3), Noida [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 27.8.2025 arising out the order of the Assessing Officer dated 14.10.2019 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act) for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The solitary ground of appeal is with respect to addition of Rs. 10 lacs made u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained investment on account of income offered during the course of search.

3.

Before us, Ld. AR submitted that a survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 19.09.2017. Assessee is a doctor by profession and during the course of survey two diaries were found and impounded, according to which assessee was having cash received from the patients which was not declared in the regular return. Accordingly, he has offered/surrendered additional income of Rs. 10 lacs on account of his profession. However, the said income was not offered in the return of income, therefore, AO confronted that the assessee has failed to give any justification as to why the said income was not offered for tax. Assessee in reply, relied on the retraction made wherein, it is stated that surrender was made due to undue pressure of survey team. No evidence was produced that the statement of the assessee were recorded under undue pressure. The assessee based on the entries found in the diaries where on a single day receipts are more than Rs. 10,000/- had declared the additional income of Rs. 10 lacs. It is further observed that AO has made the addition by holding the same as unexplained investment. Admittedly, the said income was offered by the assessee on account of suppression of

professional receipts, therefore, in any case, it cannot be held as unexplained investment. However, the fact remains that assessee has not disclosed this in the return of income. Accordingly, we hold that the provision of section 69A could not be applied and such income should be treated as business income of the assessee and accordingly, tax should be charged at the normal provisions and provision of Section 115BBE are not applicable. In view of above directions, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR Bhatnagar Date: 05.06.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →