TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors, para-medical staffs, close relatives or family friends etc., During the hearing, we also find that certain patients which were closely related with the partners of assessee-hospital. Thus, we find that the Assessing Officer has made addition without being confronting information collected by her at the back of assessee-hospital. No show cause notice before making such addition on account of suppressed addition, therefore the addition is not justified. We further find that allegation of suppressed income for A.Y 2008-09 is of Rs. 148,000, however, the assessee-hospital had paid the tax of Rs. 33,17,496/-and the partners had paid tax of Rs. 28,22,084/-thus total tax of Rs. 61,39,580/-was paid. Thus, we find merit in the submission made by Ld. AR for the assessee that allegation of suppress receipt of IPD patients of is not tenable. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire addition of suppressed receipt on account of IPD patients. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed. - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A. Shri Dhruvang H. Diwan, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come of Rs. 6,29,000/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer after serving notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) proceed for re-assessment. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that during search action in the assessees hospital premises the search team found that accounting software used by assessee-hospital had an option for modifying the receipts. The assessee-hospital used to add fixed receipt thereby suppression in the receipt. On analysis of computer (back-up) data retrieved from the computer of hospital in the hospital premises, it was found that the real receipt by hospital categorized as charged bill whereas actual bill shown as in patient bills. The charged bills did not contain any bill number, whereas the in-patient bills, which are kept for accounting purposes contains the bill number. Those patient who paid the bill in cash were given charged bill, which contain the actual payments received by the hospital. The patient who were having medical policies or whose medicals bills were reimbursed like ONGC, their charged bills and in-patients bills remains the same for the reasons that their payments were made by their company and routed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xure-A and made total of such total charges and worked out a figure of Rs. 1.48 lakh as unaccounted income of assessee against the indoor Zero Receipt Patients-IPD . 5. Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) assessee has filed combined written submission for assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. The submission of assessee-hospital is recorded in pages 12-29 para-6-7 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee in its submissions stated that assessee-hospital is a well reputed and best gynaecology hospital in the city of Surat. The assessee-hospital was flourished practice since its inception and increasing year-after-year. The Sr. doctor / partner of the assessee-hospital issued strict instruction to its doctors under assessee-hospital to ensure that patient coming their hospital get best profession services and no dissatisfaction take place against the patients. 6. The Assessing Officer assumed that assessee has not charged any fees from certain indoor / admitted patients, in fact, from such patients, the fees were charged in all assessment years. The Assessing Officer prepared Annexure-A, wherein the details of free indoor pati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o addition on the basis of such information can be made. To support such submission of assessee, the assessee relied on certain case law. The assessee further submitted that Assessing Officer made addition on account of suppression of funds received from IPD patients, is made only on the basis of assumption and not on the basis of reliable piece of evidence as per Annexure-A prepared by Assessing Officer which was enclosed with the assessment order. The Assessing Officer prepared a summary of total OPD patients treated free-of-cost by the assessee-hospital during the different assessment years in the following manner: Assessment Year Number of patients treated fee by the appellant according to the ld.AO No. of patients in fact treated free in view of para (a) above 2008-09 28 2 8 2009-10 50 48 2010-11 29 29 2011-12 48 38 2012-13 21 20 2013-14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the contents of assessment order, submission of assessee and the materials placed before him and noted that addition on account of suppression of receipt on account of income from Zero Receipt Patients-IPD categories. The Assessing Officer noted that certain documents were found during the course of search action which contents real payment from IPD categories of patients . The Assessing Officer made inquiry from the case of Smt. Prabhaben Bhagvanbhai Bhalala, against whose name an amount of Rs. 18,500/-is mentioned in the cash memo. The Assessing Officer stated that through inquiry to inspector was made further assessee-hospital as fact from comparable fees struck was given an additions were made. However, the assessee stated that whatever the charges recovered from the patients from accounted properly and there was no suppression of receipt. The assessee also took a stand that there were not confronted with the material of inquiry collected by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer objected that Assessing Officer factually incorrect that Shri Arvind Harjibhai Viradiya has admitted suppression of income for all those assessment years. Shri Arvind Harjibhai Viradi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee submits that if the intention of assessee was of suppressing the income under the guise of free treatment, the amount would be collected in cash only and not at all by banking channel, in which case, nobody would maintain such column. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that as per details of page No. 140 of paper book filed by assessee, the year-wise statement showing number of patients treated free according to the Assessing Officer is available. The statement shows that during each year, the assessee has treated of huge patients free and average patients treated were not worked out resultant rather which should have been accepted as genuine taking into consideration that average doctors available to treat bill certain patients free-of-cost. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that in case of other doctors, carrying on the same profession as genealogists, wherein similar search action was carried out, the same assessment concluded that due to poor patients and known patients can be reasonable accepted to be treated free-of-cost per day contrary to that, in assessee s own case, the same Assessing Officer made addition on the ground that assessee-hospital cannot treat free-of-co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment and presumption. The assessee and its partners / doctors are paying tax to the government exchequer for assessment year 208-09 and the assessee-firm has paid tax of Rs. 33,17,496/-and the partners of assessee have paid tax of Rs. 28,22,084/-. Thus, total tax by assessee-hospital and partners of assessee is Rs. 61,39,580/-. Therefore, the assumption of Assessing Officer that the assessee-hospital has suppressed the receipt of IPD patients of Rs. 144 lakh is totally baseless. The Ld. AR for the assessee furnished the following chart showing the details of income by assessee-hospital and partners of assessee together for different assessment years : A.Y. Profit before partners remuneration and interest Taxes paid by the firm Taxes paid by the partners of the firm Total taxes paid by the firm and partners 2017-18 5,65,00,000 65,40,959 1,89,52,916 2,57,93,875 2016-17 5,26,29,508 73,71,497 1,71,28,433 2,44,99,930 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icted the addition to the extent of 30% of such suppressed receipts, which is quite reasonable. 18. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that at the time of framing assessment the assessing officer made additions by taking view that on analysis of computer disc, during the search action, it was noted that many patients were operated but amounts paid by them were not accounted and such payments were referred as Zero Receipt Patients-IPD . The Assessing Officer identified one of the patient, Prabhaben B Bhalala. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6). The assessing officer recorded that it was also proved on the inquires under section 133(6). We find that the information gathered by assessing officer was not confronted with the assessee. The Assessing Officer further took his view that probable reason of these zero patient-IPD is that these patient not demanded the receipt of a fee, which gave an opportunity to the assessee-hospital not to generate either charged bill or in patient bill. In our view such view which was taken on probable reason is certainly a presumptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R for the assessee that allegation of suppress receipt of IPD patients of Rs. 1,48,000/-is not tenable. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire addition of suppressed receipt on account of IPD patients. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed. 21. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. IT(SS)A No. 12-16/SRT/2021 and ITA No. 40/SRT/2021 (A.Ys. 2009-10 to 13-14) 22. As recorded above, in all appeals the assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal, as raised in A.Y. 2008-09, which we have allowed, therefore, following the principle of consistency, remaining assessees appeals are allowed with similar observation as in IT(SS)A No. 11/SRT/2021 (supra). IT(SS)A No. 17-22/SRT/2021 and ITA No. 41/SRT/2021 (A.Ys. 08-09 to 13-14) 23. As recorded above, in all appeals the assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal, as raised in IT(SS)A No. 11/SRT/2021, which we have allowed, therefore, following the principle of consistency, all these assessees are also allowed with similar observation as in IT(SS)A No. 11/SRT/2021 (supra). 24. In combined result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed. A copy of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
