SARBJIT SINGH HUF,RAJPURA V. ACIT, PATIALA

ITA 408/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sarabjit Singh, HUF, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Ludhiana, which confirmed the Assessing Officer's decision to charge tax on the assessee's professional income at a higher rate under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The income was declared during a survey at the assessee's premises. The tribunal referenced a similar case involving Dr. Simrita Kaur, a member of the assessee's HUF, where it was held that the income was explained and Section 115BBE did not apply. Both parties agreed that the current case was on the same footing as Dr. Simrita Kaur's case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312840 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Dr. Simrita Kaur Vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Business income
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च\u0010डीगढ़ \u0014यायपीठ, च\u0010डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “SMC” CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.408/CHD/2024 नधा\u000fरण वष\u000f / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sarabjit Singh, HUF, 69, Dalima Vihar, Rajpura. Vs The ACIT, Patiala. \u0013थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AASHS4701E अपीलाथ\u0017/Appellant \u0019\u001aयथ\u0017/Respondent नधा\u000f\u001bरती क ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Mrs. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate राज\u0013व 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. Sd/- ( SANJAY GARG) \u0014या\u001bयक सद य/ Judicial Member “Poonam.” आदेश क \u0019 त)ल*प अ+े*षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0017/ The Appellant 2. \u0019\u001aयथ\u0017/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु,त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु,त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. *वभागीय \u0019 त न/ध, आयकर अपील\"य आ/धकरण, च1डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड\u000fफाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "