2022 (5) TMI 1174 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB - As per AO MMHRC paid amount to Monica Group in the guise of purchases which was withdrawn and paid back to the assessee. The said cash, in turn, is alleged to have been introduced in MH to inflate hospital receipts with a view to claim higher deduction u/s 80IB(11C) - HELD THAT - Allegation would have no legs to stand in the light of the fact that Shri T.John Rajasekhar admitted additional income of over Rs.12.35 Crores before Hon ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) to account for various discrepancies found in the books and bank accounts. Therefore, the conclusion that the cash was returned back to the assessee could not be upheld. As rightly noted by Ld. CIT(A), except for difference in receipts in two accounting software, there was no other evidence / information to show that the assessee had been receiving income from other sources or had been inflating hospital receipts in order to claim higher deduction u/s 80IB. The difference in receipts has already been offered to tax by the assessee and the same has been accepted by Ld. AO as well. To support his case, Ld. AO has drawn comparison between the two entities. However, as rightly noted by Ld. CIT(A), the profitability of the two entities could not be compared since MMHRC was a charitable entity having objects of Charity whereas MH was run on commercial basis. Pertinently, MH was a super specialty hospital having no competition. Therefore, to say that both the entities should have same profitability would not be a correct proposition - Thus the impugned order in granting full deduction u/s 80IB could not be faulted with. Concurring with the stand of Ld. CIT(A), we dismiss revenue s appeals for both the years. Addition based on difference of Rs.1242.12 Lacs during the entire period from 01.04.2014 to 26.11.2014 (i.e., date of search) - The assessee reconciled whole of the receipts between two software and finally arrived at difference of Rs.1262.28 Lacs and offered the same to tax in the return of income. Therefore, the separate addition of difference of a particular day would not be justified since the same has to be considered to be part and parcel of total difference as offered by the assessee. Therefore, by deleting the impugned addition, we allow the cross-objection of the assessee. The separate addition, as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2015-16 stand deleted.

Issues Involved:
1. Erroneous order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
2. Deletion of disallowance of deduction under section 80IB.
3. Alleged profit shifting to claim higher deduction under section 80IB.
4. Comparison of profitability between two hospitals.
5. Alleged siphoning of funds through Monica Group.
6. Differences in cash collections between two accounting software.
7. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Erroneous order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):
The revenue contended that the CIT(A)'s order was erroneous both factually and legally, particularly in directing the deletion of the disallowance of the deduction under section 80IB.

2. Deletion of disallowance of deduction under section 80IB:
The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the disallowance of deduction under section 80IB amounting to Rs. 3,34,51,938/-. The CIT(A) found that the AO's restriction of the deduction to 50% was based on suspicion without concrete evidence. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had already admitted the difference in receipts between two software and offered it to tax. The AO's suspicion that funds were siphoned off from MMHRC and introduced in MH to claim higher deduction was not supported by evidence. The ITSC had determined that there was no supporting evidence for the cash withdrawals being returned to MMHRC.

3. Alleged profit shifting to claim higher deduction under section 80IB:
The AO alleged that the assessee shifted profits from MMHRC to MH to claim higher deductions under section 80IB. The AO compared the profitability of the two hospitals and found MH's profit margins suspiciously high. However, the CIT(A) found this comparison flawed as MMHRC was a charitable organization, and MH was a commercial entity with no competition, justifying higher profitability.

4. Comparison of profitability between two hospitals:
The AO compared MMHRC and MH's profitability, noting that MMHRC had a lower profit margin despite having more medical equipment. The CIT(A) rejected this comparison, highlighting that MMHRC, being a charitable organization, inherently had lower profitability compared to MH, a commercial hospital.

5. Alleged siphoning of funds through Monica Group:
The AO alleged that the assessee siphoned off funds from MMHRC through Monica Group, which were then introduced as hospital receipts in MH. The CIT(A) found no evidence supporting this allegation. The ITSC's findings also did not support the AO's claims, as there was no evidence of cash being returned to the assessee.

6. Differences in cash collections between two accounting software:
During the search, a difference of Rs. 1242.12 Lacs was found between cash collections as per 'Backbone software' and 'Tally software.' The assessee admitted this difference and offered it to tax. The AO made an additional addition of Rs. 26.52 Lacs for AY 2015-16, which the CIT(A) partly confirmed. The CIT(A) noted that the difference of Rs. 1242.12 Lacs was not based on total differences for all days but only on specific dates. The assessee's reconciliation of receipts was accepted, and the separate addition was deemed unjustified.

7. Condonation of delay in filing appeals:
The revenue's appeal had a delay of 235 days, and the assessee's cross-objections had a delay of 174 days. Both parties sought condonation of the delay, which was granted by the tribunal, allowing the appeals to be adjudicated on merits.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objections. The CIT(A)'s order to grant full deduction under section 80IB was upheld, and the separate addition of Rs. 24.03 Lacs for AY 2015-16 was deleted. The tribunal found no concrete evidence supporting the AO's allegations of profit shifting, siphoning of funds, or inflation of hospital receipts. The comparison of profitability between MMHRC and MH was deemed inappropriate due to their differing operational natures. The decision was pronounced on 18th May 2022.

← Previous Next →