9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the revised ITR and therefore, the additions of Rs. 9,12,089 made by the A.O. merely by relying on the receipts and expenses declared in the original ITR u/s 139(1) were not justified in law and on facts of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,89,909 made by the A.O towards professional receipts without appreciating that the said receipt represents refund of deposits kept with M/s. Six Sigma Medicare & Research Ltd. in earlier years which do not constitute income of the appellant and hence, the said addition was not justified on facts of the case and hence, the no addition is required in respect of the said amount. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 5,68,000 made by the A.O towards Professional Charges paid to two doctors on vague grounds without appreciating that the said payments were made through banking channel after deduction of TDS and the said receipts were also offered to tax by the recipient doctors in their ITRs filed for A.Y.2020 - 21 and therefore, there was no reason to disallow the said expenses merely because the deduction in respect of the same remained to be claimed in the original ITR u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma Medicare & Research Ltd., Nashik. The assessee had made deposit three years back of an amount of Rs. 28 lakhs by Cheque. The hospital i.e.Six Sigma Medicare & Research Ltd., Nashik refunded Rs. 1,89,909/- during the year. The Revised Balance Sheet filed by the assessee clearly shows the same. The confirmation letter issued by Six Sigma Medicare & Research Ltd., Nashik was filed during the assessment proceedings. Thus, due to inadvertent error, Rs. 1,89,909/- was shown as Professional Receipt in the Original Return of Income. Therefore, Assessee filed a Revised Return of Income to correct the same. 3.2 Ld.Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that Assessee had made payment of Rs. 1,57,500/- to Doctor Daniel Fernandes after deducting TDS of Rs. 17,500/-. The assessee failed to claim the said expenditure in the Original Return of Income, hence, claimed it in the Revised Return of Income. 3.3 Further, as per TDS returns filed for 4th Quarter which were filed on the record of the AO, the impugned payment by cheques and tax deducted at source are reflected. Evidence of Payment of TDS are submitted in paper book. Further, impugned professional charges of Rs. 1,75,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant in Revised return is an afterthought and made for reducing Taxable income as alleged by the AO. The accountant had inadvertently not considered the professional charges paid to Dr. Rashmi Kochar by account payee cheques as payment towards professional charges in Original return filed. In support of the above fact, of expenditure towards professional charges Rs. 3,93,000/- the assessee had filed during assessment proceedings (a) Copy of Ledger Account of Dr. Rashmi Kochar in his books of accounts showing the professional charges paid by account payee cheques and showing tax deducted at source (b) Copy of Form 26Q filed for 4th Quarter (c) Copy Bank Statements of the assessee wherein the payments made by cheques to Dr. Rashmi Kochar are reflected. In view of the above facts and evidence the addition of Rs. 3,93,000/- on account of disallowance of professional fees paid to Dr. Rashmi Kochar is not justified. The assessee owns a Volkswagen Vento motor car bearing number ME1-15DC-8387 which was exclusively used by him for profession and total petrol & diesel expenses incurred during the year were Rs. 1,11,185/- which includes cheque payments of Rs. 5,955/-. The accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re & Research Ltd., there is no evidence to suggest that Rs. 1,89,909/- pertains to partial refund of deposits. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,89,909/- is confirmed. Payment to Dr.Daniel Fernandes : 5.2 Dr.Daniel Fernandes is an Anesthetist. Assessee claimed that Dr.Daniel Fernandes used to work as an Anesthetist for the Assessee and accordingly raised bills every quarterly. Assessee submitted that he has made payment of Rs. 3,25,000/- for F.Y.2019-20 and deducted the TDS. However, Rs. 1,75,000/- which was part of Rs. 3,25,000/- inadvertently could not be debited and hence remained to be reflected in the Original Return of Income. Assessee filed copy of Return of Income of Dr.Daniel Fernandes. On perusal of the Return of Income and its Annexures of Dr.Daniel Fernandes, it is observed that total professional receipts of Dr.Daniel Fernandes were Rs. 17,28,776/-, out of that Rs. 3,25,000/- has been received from Nitin Kochar i.e. Assessee. Remaining amounts are from Sahyadri Hospital, Six Sigma Medicare & Research Ltd., Nashik and Vinod. Thus, in the Return of Income of Dr.Daniel Fernandes, Rs. 3,25,000/- is shown as receipt from Assessee. The Assessee has also filed copy of Ledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent proceedings. Ld.DR has not raised any objection regarding the contents of the paper book filed by the assessee. Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition with only three lines. The findings of the ld.CIT(A) are reproduced as under: 5. Findings: The Grounds of appeal, the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the assessee have been carefully considered. There is no material on record to warrant interference with the order of the AO. Grounds of appeal are accordingly dismissed. 6. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. 6. Ironically, in the very same ld.CIT(A)'s order, at page no.2 to 11, the ld.CIT(A) has reproduced entire submission of the assessee. In the said submission, assessee had referred to the TDS Return and other evidence regarding payments made to Dr.Rashmi Kochar. However, ld.CIT(A) has not bothered to discuss anything about the contentions raised by the assessee, the evidences filed by the assessee and merely dismissed the appeal in one line. 6.1 In this case, during the appeal proceedings before this Tribunal, we specifically asked ld.AR of the assessee to prove that Dr.Rashmik Kochar has acted as an Anesthetist during surgeries per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditure. Assessee merely filed a Ledger Account at page no.60 and 61 of the paper book. The Ledger Account shows certain cash payments at periodic intervals. However, that does not prove that the expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 1,05,230/- is upheld. Salary and Wages Rs. 48,950/- : 8. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has observed that amount of Rs. 48,950/- was payable. AO merely mentioned that assessee has not filed relevant audited financial statement, copy of bank statement, cash book to prove the same. Hence, AO made the addition of Rs. 48,950/-. However, it is observed that assessee had filed copy of Ledger Extract of salary and wages account before the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). The amount of Rs. 48,950/- was the salary of March, 2020; hence, remained payable. It is observed from the submission of assessee before the AO dated 28.03.2022 that assessee had filed copy of salary register, name, PAN and Address of all the employees. Before us also assessee filed copy of ledger extract, copy of salary register at page no.62 to 76 of the paper book. Ld.DR has not po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
