9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 04.03.2014 and a large number of documents were impounded. Thereafter assessment u/s 144 of the Act was completed at the total income of Rs. 4,37,41,670/- after making addition on the basis of various documents impounded during survey. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who noted that the assessee had filed an application before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) for the preceding years i.e. 2010-11 to 2012-13 and succeeding year 2014-15 which had been decided by the Hon'ble ITSC vide order dated 23.11.2015 passed u/s 245D(4) of the Act. He noted that most of the issues that were discussed in the order of the Hon'ble ITSC were similar to the issues forming part of the assessment order under appeal. Accordingly, based on the order of the Hon'ble ITSC he decided the issues in the present impugned year also and partly allowed the assessee's appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the Ld.CIT(A) the Revenue has now come up in appeal before us raising the following effective grounds as per revised grounds of appeal filed before us: "2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in restrictin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted receipts from Kidney & Uro Centre, by not rightly interpreting the observations made by the Income Tax Settlement Commission on this issue for the AYs. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 wherein the Ronnie Income Tax Settlement Commission had observed that the extrapolation exercise carried out by the Department appears to be on the right line. Further it is also a matter of fact that the assessee in the AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15 had offered 2 lac in each assessment year totaling to Rs. 6 lac as additional income. 5.1 Without prejudice to the ground No. 5 mentioned above, the Ld. CIT{A) has erred by not appreciating the fact that the principle of res judicata is not applicable in the Income Tax Proceedings. 6. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 643563/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted receipts from Mukut Hospital by not rightly interpreting the observations made by theIncome Tax Settlement Commission on this issue for the AYs. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 wherein the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission had observed that the extrapolation exercise carried out by the Department appears to be on the right line. Further it is also a matter o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... head professional receipts at Rs. 2,53,87,697/-. The Assessing Officer found that the professional receipts were not fully recorded in the final accounts of the assessee and the difference between the extrapolated receipts and that shown in the books of Rs. 3,06,71,903/- was added to the income of the assessee 8. The Ld.CIT(A) noted that identical issue had been discussed by the Hon'ble ITSC in its order u/s 245D(4) of the Act pertaining to preceding and succeeding year, alongwith the issue of commission paid to fellow doctors and unaccounted expenditure at paras 7 to 8 of the order. He noted from the same that the Hon'ble ITSC had accepted the assessee's plea before it that the impounded documents represented her unaccounted income. The Hon'ble ITSC had also accepted the assessee's calculation of the same on the basis of taking financial year 2013-14 (assessment year 2014-15) as the base year since in that year documents representing unaccounted receipts for 10 months (June to March) were impounded. From these documents it had been worked out that only 54% of her actual receipts were accounted for in her books. For financial year 2013-14 the actual gross receipts wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to follow the order of the Hon'ble ITSC while calculating the undisclosed income on account of unaccounted receipts of the impugned year. 10. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 11. We have heard both the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) who has ,we hold, rightly calculated the unaccounted receipts in the impugned year following the basis accepted by the ITSC in the preceding and succeeding years. 12. The Ld.CIT(A) has noted that the assessee had submitted its calculation to the ITSC of unaccounted receipts basis documents found relating to A.Y. 2014-15 since they represented unaccounted receipts for 10 months. The percentage so worked out was applied to the rest of the years irrespective of the fact that documents relating to the whole of the said years was impounded or not. The ITSC found the said declaration of the assessee, as correct and in order for all the years and in fact found it to be more than the figures as worked out by the Department. The Settlement Commission has also accepted the assessee's claim of expenses @ 29% of the receipts for all the years. The Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble ITSC on the issue for the preceding and succeeding years. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) at para 6.2 of the order are as under: "6.2. Held: I have examined the issues of addition of unaccounted receipts made by the Assessing Officer. The unaccounted receipts of the appellant have already been estimated on the basis of impounded papers. There cannot be double addition on the issue of unaccounted receipts using .two different methods of addition. This view is in line with the view taken by the Hon'ble ITSC. Hence, the addition of Rs. 65,44,200/- is deleted Grounds of Appeal Nos. 3 (a) & 3 (b) are allowed." 18. Before us the Ld. DR relied on the order of the AO while the Ld.Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 19. We have heard both the parties and have also gone through the orders of the authorities below.It is not disputed that the addition on account of unaccounted receipts already stands made on the basis of cash receipts recorded in daily cash registers which were impounded during survey. The addition now being made of the same by estimation on the basis of documents revealing commission paid to doctors ,is as rightly stated by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12,07,476/- reflected in the books, therefore, the addition of Rs. 9,94,708/- made by the AO is hereby deleted. Ground of Appeal No. 7 is allowed." 23. The revenue has contended that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred by deleting addition of Rs. 9,94, 708/- treating it as double addition, when in fact the documents demonstrated they were altogether different. 24. We have gone through the order of the AO and also the Ld.CIT(A). On going through the facts in the said orders ,we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition on finding it to be on account of mere duplication of figures mentioned in the two documents A-16 & A-20 impounded. 25. This fact, we find , is apparent from the summarized totals of the two annexures A-16 and A-20. 26. The two annexures are tabulated in the order of the AO at page 52 as under: Annexure No. Period Description Amount Amount Relevant to the A.Y.2013-14 A-16 Apr- 12 ESIC BILLS 73141 73141 A-16 May- 12 ESIC BILLS 59771 59771 A-16 Jun-12 ESIC BILLS 77315 77315 A-16 Jul-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 108059 108059 A-16 Aug-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 93806 93806 A-16 Sep-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 1192 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per documents A-14 & A-21 showing income received from "KUC" read as Kidney and Uro Centre a known hospital in Chandigarh sector-46. 30. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the same finding merit in the contention of the assessee that all receipts as reflected in the said documents stood duly accounted for in its books and further considering the order of the ITSC on identical issue in the preceding and succeeding year holding as under: "11.1 Per Contra: The appellant has made the following observation with respect to this amount: "i. The Assessing Officer has mentioned that a sum of Rs. 3,27,275/- is on account of receipt from "KUC" and out of which, according to him, Rs. 1.93.020/- has been recorded and, as such, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer is incorrect. ii. ft is fact that Rs. 2,77,550/- is duly recorded as per chart is being furnished herewith either in this year or in the next year. iii. With regard to figure of Rs. 25,225/-, i! is submitted that in the Annexure, the figure of Rs. 13,000 stands recorded in the books of accounts and there is no figure of Rs. 25225/- iv. The figure of Rs. 24.500/- is duly recorded in the books of account and hence no addition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt be made by including the above said additional offer and oblige" 14.3.3 Summing up, the applicant has made this additional offer of additional income in respect of (he three hospitals to give quietus to the issue in the spirit of settlement. Accordingly, the said amount would be included in the income for settlement." 11.2 Held: I have perused the order of the Assessing Officer, examined the reply of the assessee and observation made by the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. In view of above findings of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, I find merit in the arguments of the appellant. Hence, the addition of Rs. 1,29,255/- made by the AO is deleted Ground of Appeal No. 9 is allowed. 31. Before us Ld.DR relied on the order of the AO while the Ld.Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 32. We have heard both the parties. We have also gone through the order of both the AO and the Ld.CIT(A).We find that the assessee had demonstrated from its books of accounts that all the amounts noted in the documents stood recorded in her books. The Ld.CIT(A) confronted the same to the AO who was unable to point any infirmity. Even before us the Revenue h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is consolidated figure has got no relevance and cannot be separately added. JAN 2013- DEC 2013 732700 183175 This figure is a consolidated figure for 3 months. However separate figures for each month are available in A-23 and as such, this consolidated figure has got no relevance and cannot be separately added. , _ _ _ _ TOTAL 596763 According to Ld. AO even if the total amount received as per consolidated figures should be 596763/- whereas, the assessee has already credited in regular books of accounts a sum of Rs. 580550/-. The minor difference can be on account of certain deductions having been made by mukata hospital. The difference can De due to hypothetical working of amount relatable to A. Y. 2013-14. However separate figures for each month are available in A-23 and as such: this consolidated figure has got no relevance and cannot be separately added. 12.1.2. In reply filed on 19.07.2017, the appellant has made no fresh arguments. 12.1.3. The observations of Hon'ble Income Commission have been reproduced in para 14.3. "14.3 Commission's decision:-As can be seen, the accounts av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition after examining and finding merit in the assessee's contention that all amounts reflected in the documents stood accounted for in the books of the assessee. He also noted that the ITSC had accepted assessee's lumpsum surrender on this account of Rs. 6lacs made in three years to buy quietus to the issue on being pointed out that the department had been unable to point out cash receipts outside the books on this account in the years before the ITSC. The Revenue has brought nothing before us to controvert the factual contention of the assessee that all amounts recorded in the documents stood disclosed in the books of the assessee. 38. In view of the same and considering the order of the ITSC on similar issue in the preceding and succeeding ears wherein also the department was unable to point out any cash receipts outside the books on this account, we see no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition made on account of alleged unaccounted receipts from Mukut Hospital amounting to Rs. 6,43,563/- Ground of appeal No.6 & 6.1 of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 39. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
