Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1157 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment u/s. 69 - Held that:- The opening WDV was declared as lesser value in the original return of income. These are genuine explanations assessee has to offer before the assessing authorities. Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition merely because these additions were made in the subsequent assessment year, the same cannot be added in this assessment year as unexplained investment, which is, according to us not proper. When assessee claims differently in the revised return of income, it is the duty of assessee to explain properly the source of such investment. Therefore, for the sake of justice, we are remitting back this issue of unexplained investment to the file of AO to verify the sources of investment with a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Disallowance of expenditure - Held that:- AO has made the three additions relating to consultancy charges, cost of medicines and salaries. With regard to consultancy charges, assessee has brought on record the details of expenditure relating to consultancy charges and the differences in the relevant P&L statement itself. As such, there is no additional evidence submitted before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we uphold the findings of Ld.CIT(A) with regard to consultancy charges. Coming to cost of maintenance and salaries, assessee has recognized the pending receipts from Arogya Sree Scheme at the same time recorded the relevant expenditure only in the revised return of income filed. Assessee has submitted relevant information along with confirmation of balance received from suppliers before the CIT(A). This balance confirmation and relevant vouchers for purchase of medicine and salaries due were not submitted before the AO. In our considered view, this needs verification as the same was not submitted before the AO. Salary payable and supplier confirmation are remitted back to the file of AO for verification. Needless to say that assessee may be given proper opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes. Claim of inflated expenditure relating to chit discount, bank interest and X-ray expenses - Held that:- We have noticed that assessee has disclosed Arogya Sree receipts in the original return of income after adjusting the expenditures. According to assessee, it is relevant to that particular source of income. Whereas at the time of filing revised return of income, it has properly disclosed the total receipts from Arogya Sree and declared the above said expenditure in the P&L A/c as expenditure. Further, relevant information was submitted before AO on 25-02-2013 which was also acknowledged by the AO. Therefore, it is not an additional evidence, it is only a book adjustment which is already in the file of AO. Therefore we are in agreement with the findings of Ld.CIT(A). Moreover, the proceedings before CIT(A) are nothing but extension of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, ground raised by Revenue is dismissed. Consultancy charges to doctors under the head consultancy charges - addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of TDS - Held that:- We noticed that assessee has filed evidences to claim that it has paid payment to doctors below ₹ 20,000/- and claim under Arogya Sree Scheme before CIT(A). This information was not submitted before the AO. We noticed that this information needs no further verification. These are handful vouchers which were submitted before Ld.CIT(A) which he has verified and agreed. No need of any further investigation or verification. Accordingly, ground raised by Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of depreciation - Held that:- We found that the claim of assessee is proper. The claim made by assessee in return of income is relevant and not the calculation as per the depreciation schedule, which may be filed by the assessee before the AO. We find that the assessee has claimed valid depreciation in the return of income as per depreciation schedule. Therefore, ground raised by Revenue is dismissed. Appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|