TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tently followed and accepted by the department. 2. Because the order is under challenge on facts and law for upholding the addition of ₹ 25,13,016/- on account of objection for there being unaccounted surgeries. 3. Because the order is under challenge on facts and law in sustaining the addition of ₹ 2,62,400/- (50% of ₹ 5,25,200/-) relatable to consumables on the premises of assessee required to maintain stock register whereas not prescribed u/s 44AA of the Act 4. Because the order is under challenge on facts and law in sustaining the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- relatable to Agricultural Exp relying on the report of Commission for Agricultural Cost and Prices Government of India 2. The issue in ground No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion found from the kachcha register, the entry of 438 patients in the camp whereas 148 surgeries were stated to be conducted by the assessee. Shri Rajiv Gupta confirmed that all the patients were checked in the camp and thereafter surgeries were conducted at assessee s hospital and the entries for such patients should appear in the operation record maintained by the assessee. The assessee had failed to produce the receipts, nor any expenses to substantiate the facts. The plea of the assessee was that the said organization had certified that 148 operations were carried out by the assessee and no other operations were carried out at the camp. The Assessing Officer rejected the plea of the assessee and held the assessee to have concealed h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r at ₹ 1,96,420/- and addition was made to the total income of the assessee. 4. In appeal the assessee furnished written submissions which were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for his comments and report. The Assessing Officer sent his report on 27.2.2009, against which the assessee furnished a counter reply. The appeal was discussed in detail in the presence of the Assessing Officer and counsel and the predecessor CIT(A) remanded the case to the Assessing Officer under section 250(4) of the Act for submission of report after due verification. Before the successor CIT(A) the Assessing Officer submitted his detailed report dated 13.3.2009, 14.5.2010 and 11.09.2010 after which the case was discussed with the counsel of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the A.O. as mentioned in his assessment order. A.O. drew a reasonable inference that 247 surgeries in which lenses were fitted was not taken into account and therefore, with the sufficient material gathered he proceeded to make the impugned addition. 5. The CIT(A) vide para 4.8 had taken into account the proposal of the counsel for the assessee that the impugned addition be reduced to ₹ 14,82,000/-. The CIT(A) upheld the rejection of books of account and also the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of records made available by the assessee. 6. In respect of the second addition of ₹ 5,25,000/- made on account of consumables, the CIT(A) held that the assessee should have shown some consumables ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of the total 1008 operations done by the assessee and computed the receipts of those 247 surgeries at ₹ 25,13,016/-. The books of account maintained by the assessee could not be relied upon. The learned counsel for the assessee in his reply dated 30.1.2009 filed before the CIT(A) admits the possibility of shortage of non-foldable lenses and submitted as under : Without prejudice to our contention that no addition was called for, the shortage in lenses, if any, which were used in the camp was on account of non-foldable lenses only, and the fee charged for operations with non-foldable lenses was ₹ 5000-7000. The A O. was not justified in applying the rate of surgery at ₹ 10,174/-. At worst, the average rate o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties below that the addition on account of unaccounted surgeries merits to be made in the hands of the assessee. The assessee claims the average rate of surgery at ₹ 6000/- per surgery, whereas the Assessing Officer has applied the average rate of surgery at ₹ 10,174/-. No basis has been filed by the assessee to establish its case whereas the Assessing Officer had applied the average rate of surgery vis- -vis total receipts declared for the year under consideration. In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case we direct the Assessing Officer to apply the rate of ₹ 8000/- per surgery to compute the income of the assessee for 247 surgeries carried out during the year. Thus ground No.2 raised by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
