Held that   the income surrendered during the course of survey could not be brought to tax under the deeming provisions of section 69A but has to be assessed to tax under the head “Business income” as rightly offered by the assessee. The question of application of section 115BBE did not arise and the normal rate of tax ought to apply. The Assessing Officer was directed to assess the income under the head Income from business or profession and apply the normal rate of tax.Held that  once the assessee had explained that the excess cash found during survey was out of unrecorded sale transactions, in the absence of anything to the contrary on record in terms of any other activity undertaken by the assessee other than its business activity, the deeming provisions would not be attracted. The unrecorded cash had to be assessed under the head Business income as rightly done by the assessee. The question of application of section 115BBE did not arise and the Assessing Officer was directed to assess the income under the head “Income from business or profession” at the normal rate of tax.Held that a statement recorded under section 131 during the course of survey had no evidentiary value in the absence of any corroborative evidence on record. Therefore, the statement of the assessee recorded under section 131 during the course of survey and the subsequent affirmation thereof by the assessee by way of a surrender letter, could not, on a standalone basis and without any corroborative evidence, fulfil the statutory mandate of the deeming provisions of section 69A. As a logical corollary the statement and the subsequent affirmation could not be the basis for the assessment. Referred CIT v. P. Balasubramanian(2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad)(HC)  CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157(Mad)(HC)   Held  there were 77 entries in the diary found during the survey giving names and corresponding amounts. The names were incomprehensible without the full name, address, father’s name and other identity details. There was no description of whether the respective amounts written against the names were received, or paid, by the assessee, the dates of such receipt or payment or the financial year of the transactions. There was no tangible material in the Revenue’s possession to demonstrate that the assessee had made any such transaction with the so-called persons mentioned in the diary. There was no basis for making the additions.(AY.2018-19)