9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceipts, facts in all appeals are similar, therefore, with the consent of parties, all the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid conflicting decisions. For appreciation of facts, facts in assessment year 2008-09 in IT(SS)A No. 11/SRT/2021 in the case of Me And Mummy Hospital is treated as "lead" case. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal: - IT (SS) A No. 11/SRT/2021 "1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 44,400/-made on the ground of suppression of professional receipts from the patients admitted in the hospital. 2) The appellant craves, leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete, change or vary one or more or all the grounds of grounds of appeal." 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm engaged in running of hospital at Surat. One of the partners of assessee is a Gynaecologist doctor. A search and seizure action under section 132 was carried out at residence as well as business premises of assessee on 04.03.2014. In said search medical professional of Surat were covered. The assessee-hospital was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll, copy of which is scanned by Assessing Officer in assessment order recorded that such patient made payment of Rs. 18,500/-. However, no amount was entered in the books of account. The assessee recorded total 28 'zero receipt patient-IPD' category. As per the hard disc, mode of payment against such patient is mentioned as cash in all cases but amount of charge is not mentioned. The Assessing Officer in order to verify the veracity of receipt issued notice under section 133(6) and required details of treatment obtained by her and payment made to the hospital by her. The assessing officer recorded that in case of Indoor Patient, the hospital never provides free of cost services. The assessing officer further recorded that it was also proved on the inquires under section 133(6). The assessing officer recorded 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. The Assessing Officer also recorded that during the course of recording statements of Dr. Arvind H Viradiya who admitted the fact of modification of receipts vis- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o assessment year 2013-14, whereas Assessing Officer made addition in all assessment years and such action of Assessing Officer is not legally tenable and the addition on the basis of fact of one year cannot be made in various assessment years by making generalized statement as has been held in various case law by Hon'ble higher courts of the country. The Assessing Officer incorrectly recorded that finding in case of patient, Smt. Prabha Bhagvanbhai Bhalala, one was confronted with the assessee-hospital and no confrontation was made by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also recorded similar finding after issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act that such information was never confronted with the assessee and such observation of Assessing Officer was incorrect. 7. On the contrary, the assessee submitted various reply / confirmation from various patients for different assessment years, whereby the concerned patients had confirmed that as "Zero Receipt Patients-IPD" they were treated free by the assessee-hospital. The details of such responses of various patients were filed. The Assessing Officer incorrectly observed that in case of indoor patients, the assessee-hosp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer, that the partner of the assessee-hospital, during search action has accepted the suppressed fees in the statement recorded by such different years. The assessee submitted that such admission was made only for financial year 2013-14 relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The partners of assessee-hospital in his statement categorically stated that except in case of assessment year 2013-14 was suppressed of income has not been made by assessee-hospital in any of earlier financial year. The copy of statement of partners were furnished. The partner of assessee-hospital admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 81 lakh for assessment year 2014-15 and paid due tax thereon while filing return of income. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that in the assessment order of assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14 that partners of assessee-hospital admitted suppression of income in any statement. 9. The assessee further stated that Assessing Officer before making addition on account of suppression of professional receipt from IPD patients had not issued any show cause notice to the assessee-hospital to afford an opportunity to represent or explained its case. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that no incriminating material was found in the search action carried out in case of assessee on 04.03.2014 to shat that assessee was has given free treatment to the IPD patients admitted rather the fact that assessee charged fees were found during the course of search action. The Assessing Officer prepared Annexure-A which was made a part of assessment order, copy of which is filed at pages 46 to 139 of the paper book filed for all assessment years by assessee, wherein Assessing Officer's last column mentioned the amount charged and added by Assessing Officer only as per his assumed of fees charged and that such fees are not mentioned in the print out allegedly obtained from hard disclosure of computer of assessee-hospital. From such details, it can be showed that against the details of patients treated free-of-cost not a single amount stated as of fees charged. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee-hospital explained that software seized from assessee was defective and appreciating such fact, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted huge addition in the bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en receipt has been accounted for. The Assessing Officer made the addition in all assessment years as assessee treated the patients free-of-cost. 14. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that in the form of prints out eligible taken from the hard disc impounded from the premises of assessee-hospital is not admissible and those admissibility of such evidence, the condition prescribed under section 65B(2) which states that certificate of two persons having controlled over use of computer, nor should arrive was regular paid into computer in the ordinary course of activity and that computer was operating properly during the relevant period. In absence of such certificate with regard to any electronic device for admissibility of such evidence is mandatory for admission of evidence collected from such computer system. To support such submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court: * Arjun Paditrao Khothar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (Civil Appeals No. 20825-20826 of 2017) * Anvar P.V. vs. P.K.-Basheer [2014] (3) ECS (1) (SC) * Ravinder Singh @ Kaku vs. State of Punjab [2022] Live Law (SC) 461] 15. The ld. AR for the assessee submits tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the course of search action and inquiries conducted by her during assessment stage. The Assessing Officer made a reasonable addition only with regard to discrepancy, the Ld. CIT(A) found with regard to "Zero Receipt Patients-IPD". The Ld. CIT(A) reasonably restricted 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 "ze ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
