SARBJIT SINGH HUF,RAJPURA vs. ACIT, PATIALA

आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण,चडीगढ़ यायपीठ, चडीगढ़
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DIVISION BENCH, “SMC” CHANDIGARH

BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.408/CHD/2024
नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2018-19
थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AASHS4701E
अपीलाथ/Appellant

यथ/Respondent

नधारती क ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Mrs. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate
राजव क ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR

सुनवाई क तार"ख/Date of Hearing
: 17.04.2025
उदघोषणा क तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025

PHYSICAL HEARING

आदेश/Order

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)-5 Ludhiana, [in short referred to as CIT(A)] dated
09.12.2022 relating to A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The assessee in this appeal has contested the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer
(in short ‘the AO’) in charging the tax on the income of the assessee at a higher rate by applying the provisions of ITA No. 408/Chd-2024

A.Y. 2018-19
2

Section 115 BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’) in respect of the professional income declared by the assessee during the survey action carried out at the premises of the assessee.
3. The appeal is time barred by 432 days. Separate application for condonation of delay has been filed which is further supported by the duly sworn affidavit by one Mr. Ajay
Kaundal, working as an Accountant with the assessee. He has deposed in the affidavit the reasons because of which the delay has happened in filing the present appeal, were mainly, due to the fact that the assessee was not required to deposit any tax and further that he forgot to convey to the assessee the message of the Chartered Accountant that the appeal was required to be filed in this case.
4. Considering the submissions made in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF engaged in the diagnostic business at Rajpura under the name and style of ‘Imaging Center’ and is also having rental income, agriculture income and bank interest income, in addition to the business income of the Diagnostic Centre.

ITA No. 408/Chd-2024

A.Y. 2018-19
3

A search action was carried out at the premises of the assessee wherein, the member of the HUF family Dr. Simita
Kaur was also covered. She had also offered certain income out of her profession as a Doctor. The assessee had also offered the income earned out of the business of Diagnostic
Centre. However, the AO in both the cases, applied the provisions of Section 115BBE and held that the said income was from unexplained sources. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Simrita Kaur Vs. ACIT in ITA
No. 405/CHD/2024 i.e. the member of the assessee HUF, who had offered the income during the same survey action, after considering the submissions, has held that the income from the profession has been duly explained and that the provisions of Section 115BBE were not attracted in the case.
6. Both the ld. Representatives of the parties have been fair enough to state that the case of the assessee is also on the same footing and the income offered by the assessee was out of business income of Imaging Centre. Therefore, I do not find justification on the part of the lower authorities in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax
Act. The income of the assessee, thus, is liable to be ITA No. 408/Chd-2024

A.Y. 2018-19
4

charged at normal rates as applicable to income from business or profession. I order accordingly.
7. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 30.04.2025. ( SANJAY GARG)
यायक सद य/ Judicial Member
“Poonam.”

आदेश क  त)ल*प अ+े*षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :

आदेशानुसार/ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार/