9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the addition of Rs. 16,47,500/- made by the AO after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a Doctor by profession [Robotic Surgeon] who filed his return of income (RoI) for AY 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. 40,62,028/-. Later, the AO re-opened the assessment of the assessee by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act") on 28.02.2019, and pursuant to it, the assessee filed RoI declaring total income of Rs. 42,12,030/-. According to the AO, he got information that assessee has received unaccounted income of Rs. 16,47,500/- as fees from 3295 patients [i.e. Rs. 500/- per patient] viz out-patient consultation done at M/s.Appollo Hospitals. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to partly allow by deleting Rs. 1,50,000/-, but confirmed the addition of Rs. 16,47,500/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the addition of Rs. 16,47,500/-. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee by profession is a Doctor & Robotic Surgeon and full time consultant of M/s.Apollo Hospitals Ltd. The assessee has filed RoI on 26.07.2012 for AY 2012-13 declaring an income of Rs. 40,62,028/-. The RoI filed by the assessee was re-opened by the AO by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 28.02.2019 based on the information from the Ld.PCIT, Central-1, Chennai, that pursuant to a search cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to section 145(3) of the Act, has impliedly rejected the audited books of accounts maintained by assessee merely on suspicion that log-book produced appears to be prepared recently. In this regard, Ld AR pointed out that the AO has not alleged any deficiencies/infirmity in the log-book vis a vis that of Rule 6F of the Rules. The Ld AR further pointed out that AO during assessment proceedings neither expressed any doubts about the veracity of the log-book which was maintained by assessee in accordance to Rule 6F of the Rules nor gave any Show-Cause Notice to assessee, expressing his dissatisfaction about the genuineness of the log-book. According to Ld AR, only when he received the assessment order to his surprise, he came to know that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case. And merely based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises, the action of the AO to express his dissatisfaction about the correctness or completeness of the accounts, when assessee's books are audited cannot be accepted. By merely copying/reproducing Rule 6F of the Rules, and sec.145(3) of the Act, the AO cannot justify his action of rejecting the books of accounts which was regularly maintained by the assessee and which have undergone auditing u/s. 44AB of the Act. Therefore, we don't countenance the action of the Ld.CIT(A) upholding the action of the AO rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. And since we accept the log-book maintained by assessee in accordance to Rule 6F of the Rules and note that there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
