2013 (2) TMI 154 - HC - Income Tax

Chargeable income - interpretation for the provisions of Section 29 & 145 - undisclosed surgery operations - in appeal Tribunal reduced the quantum of addition @ Rs.8000/- per surgery form Rs.10,174 - Held that - Once the assessee has himself stated before the Tribunal that the average rate of the surgery be reduced to Rs.6000/- per surgery, then now it is not open to the appellant to dispute that that the flat rate applied by the Tribunal is arbitrary. In fact, the average rate of surgery @ Rs.10,147/- was based upon the number of surgeries performed by the appellant in one year and the income earned therefrom. The addition made by the Assessing Officer were based upon reasonable grounds, which may not be said to be arbitrary. In fact, the Tribunal was indulgent to the appellant in reducing the average rate to Rs.8000/- per surgery. Appellant has further argued that a specific ground was raised before the Tribunal that the rejection of books of accounts is wholly unjustified and that the Tribunal has wrongly recorded in the order that the rejections of books of account was not disputed by the assessee. Thus no merit in the said argument as well. Mere fact that in the grounds of appeal, the appellant has raised a ground to assert that rejection of books of account is incorrect, is not sufficient to accept the argument of the appellant. The Tribunal has recorded the concession on the basis of argument raised during the course of hearing. Therefore, the finding has been recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of proceedings at the time of hearing. The concession recorded during the course of hearing cannot be permitted to be disputed in appeal - no substantial question of law arises.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of Section 29 and 145 for determining 'chargeable income' in Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of addition made on account of undisclosed surgeries.
3. Reasonableness of the average rate applied by the Tribunal for surgery income estimation.
4. Dispute regarding rejection of books of accounts by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment year 2006-07. The primary issue raised was the interpretation of provisions of Section 29 and 145 for determining 'chargeable income'. The appellant questioned the sustainability of concluding proceedings on presumption while ignoring material facts and particulars on record. The Tribunal had made additions based on undisclosed surgeries, leading to a dispute over the application of relevant provisions.

2. The Assessing Officer had initially added a specific amount on account of undisclosed surgeries, which was later reduced by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the appellant's submissions regarding the rate of surgeries and adjusted the addition accordingly. The Tribunal's decision was based on the discrepancy admitted by the appellant regarding the surgeries, leading to a revised calculation of the undisclosed income. The Tribunal's findings focused on the factual aspects and the basis for determining the quantum of addition.

3. The appellant contested the reasonableness of the average rate applied by the Tribunal for estimating surgery income. Citing legal precedents, the appellant argued that arbitrary estimation of undisclosed income is impermissible. However, the Court found that the Tribunal's decision to reduce the average rate per surgery was based on the appellant's own statements during the proceedings. The Court upheld the Tribunal's discretion in adjusting the rate and deemed the addition made by the Assessing Officer as reasonable.

4. Another contention raised was the rejection of books of accounts by the Tribunal, which the appellant claimed to be unjustified. The Tribunal's recording of the appellant's concession regarding the books of accounts was disputed. The Court clarified that concessions made during the hearing cannot be challenged in appeal based on grounds raised subsequently. The Tribunal's findings were upheld based on the proceedings and concessions made during the hearing, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the substantial question of law framed did not arise for consideration. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decisions regarding the undisclosed surgeries, the application of average rates, and the rejection of books of accounts, emphasizing the importance of concessions made during the proceedings.