TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applying his independent mind and discretion; and merely upholding the addition on the ground that the CIT(A) in the case of CIMS Hospital Pvt Ltd has directed to make the additions, the same is confirmed. In our view, the confirmation of the addition cannot be upheld. Besides, the assessee discharged his burden by providing necessary cash flow statements and demonstrated that the transaction in question was reflected in the wealthtax return which was accepted by the Department. Therefore, in our view, this amounts to discharge of burden cast upon the assessee in this behalf. Further, the Department cannot blow hot and cold and take a divergent decision qua addition in wealth-tax and income-tax proceedings. Thus, the grounds of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- on the ground that CIT(A)-III has deleted addition of ₹ 4,25,000/- for Assessment Year 2009-10 in case of CIMS Hospital Pvt Ltd and given the finding that ₹ 4,25,000/- belong to the Appellant by ignoring the fact that the appellant has duly disclosed the cash on 31.03.2008 in his wealth tax return. 3. Brief facts are an amount of ₹ 4,25,000/- was added in the hands of Hospital by the AO, rejecting the assessee s explanation that the said amount was contributed by Dr. Keyur Parikh, one of the Directors who was assessed to Income-tax and Wealth-tax. The fact of this contribution was reflected in the Wealth-tax Return of Dr. Keyur Parikh which was accepted by the Department. The assessee, CIMS Hospital Pvt Ltd chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections in the case of an assessee who was not a party to appeal before him and challenged the addition on merits also. On merits, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the reasoning that ld. CIT(A)- III, Ahmedabad had already given finding that the amount of ₹ 4,25,000/- belonged to appellant Dr. Keyur Parikh by following observations:- 8.1 The AO has discussed in detail the cash balance, cash book and the withdrawal of the appellant which is justified. It is seen that the appellant was regularly maintaining the books of account and as on 21.08.2008 cash balance was ₹ 1,05,116/- only as against the cash found of ₹ 4,25,000/-. The AO has given the benefit of cash in hand of ₹ 1,05,116/- shown in the cash book and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng direction and held as under:- 19. As we part with our adjudication on this issue, we may also take note of learned Departmental Representative s contention that the assessee has no locus standi to raise any grievance against these directions as he is not the aggrieved party vis- -vis these directions. We are unable to see any merits in this plea either. The manner in which the appeal has been decided by the CIT(A) gives an impression, which is a wholly inappropriate impression and which has also been reiterated before us by the learned Departmental Representative, that the impugned additions have been deleted in the hands of the assessee as these additions are required to be made in the hands of someone else. The deletion of the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rves to be expunged from the appellate order. 5. Adverting to the appeal of Dr. Keyur Parikh, the ld. Counsel for the assessee once again contends that the direction of ld. CIT(A) is held to be untenable and it cannot form a valid basis for re-opening of assessment. Therefore, the reassessment in the case of Dr. Keyur Parikh deserves to be quashed being based on untenable non-est ground. 6. Apropos merits, ld. Counsel contends that the assessee has demonstrated the source of contribution made in CIMS Hospital Pvt Ltd by ample evidence and discharged its burden in effective terms by filing the cash flow statement; complete facts with the transaction in question is reflected in the wealth-tax return which is accepted by the Department. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alid and deserves to be quashed. However, we may like to adjudicate the issue on merits as well. In our considered view, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition not applying his independent mind and discretion; and merely upholding the addition on the ground that the CIT(A) in the case of CIMS Hospital Pvt Ltd has directed to make the additions, the same is confirmed. In our view, the confirmation of the addition cannot be upheld. Besides, the assessee discharged his burden by providing necessary cash flow statements and demonstrated that the transaction in question was reflected in the wealthtax return which was accepted by the Department. Therefore, in our view, this amounts to discharge of burden cast upon the assessee in this behalf. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
