2013 (4) TMI 765 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:

1. Adjournment petitions.
2. Condonation of delay for cross objections.
3. Validity of proceedings u/s 153C.
4. Estimation of number of operations.
5. Estimation of fees and expenses for operations.
6. Adoption of net wealth method for assessment.

Summary:

1. Adjournment Petitions:

Mr. Saroj Kumar Parida's adjournment petition for Dr. Deepak Lemech was rejected due to lack of proper reasons. Similarly, Mr. N. Devanathan's oral plea for adjournment for Dr. L. Srinivasan was also rejected.

2. Condonation of Delay for Cross Objections:

Cross objections of Dr. Deepak Lemech were delayed by 29 days. The delay was condoned, and the cross objections were admitted.

3. Validity of Proceedings u/s 153C:

Dr. L. Srinivasan raised an additional ground questioning the validity of proceedings initiated u/s 153C for want of recording of satisfaction. The CIT(A) did not address this issue. The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the CIT(A) for consideration and disposal in accordance with law.

4. Estimation of Number of Operations:

Assessing Officer estimated 760 renal transplants, but the CIT(A) accepted 407 operations based on evidence. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the list from Bharathiraja Hospital and estimated the total number of operations at 570, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt this number and apportion it accordingly.

5. Estimation of Fees and Expenses for Operations:

The CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's estimation of fees per operation but allowed expenses for supporting staff at Rs. 9,000 per case. The Tribunal found the expenses for supporting staff reasonable and increased it to Rs. 12,000 per case. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the income considering this expense.

6. Adoption of Net Wealth Method for Assessment:

The Tribunal rejected the adoption of the net wealth method for the assessees, stating it was appropriate only for Dr. P. Ravichandran, who was subjected to search and had his investments on record.

Conclusion:

The appeals of the Revenue were partly allowed. Cross objections of Dr. Deepak Lemech were partly allowed, whereas cross objections of Dr. L. Srinivasan were allowed for statistical purposes.