9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the doctors - Hence, the department should have issued notice to the doctors for confirmation of the payments and if they confirm receipts, to make assessments on doctors and if they deny, to proceed against the respondent/assessee and direct them to prove the payment as having been made and in the absence of proof of payment, to make assessment of the amount under Section 69C - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA. No. 56 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2011 - C.N. Ramachandran Nair, P.S. Gopinathan, JJ. P.K.R. Menon, Sr. Counsel for the Appellant JUDGEMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair: The appeals are filed by the revenue with a delay of 23 days. In the normal course, we should condone the delay only after issuing notice t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he common orders of the Tribunal passed for the four years 2000-2001 to 2003-2004, the department has filed these 8 appeals raising the same question as to whether the entire amount collected in the name of doctors by the respondent could be assessed as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, on account of the failure of the respondent to prove the expenditure. 3. We have heard the standing counsel appearing for the appellant in detail who tried to justify the assessment under Section 69C which is as follows: "69C. Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the same and if proved, department will be bound to accept it. In this case also assessee conceded that the unaccounted receipts were collected for payment to doctors attending to patients in the hospital. What we notice is that the department has not made any effort to confront the doctors with the unaccounted payments stated to have been made to them by the hospital which engaged them. In our view, the question of addition in the hands of the respondent/assessee arises only when the doctors deny having received the amount. We do not know, why department did not venture to confront the doctors with the explanation offered by the respondent/assessee with regard to the payments made to them. In fact, we notice that the Tribunal whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
