9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blished - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on on account of unexplained advances received from patients - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- In the year under consideration, no fruitful purpose shall serve to the Revenue because if the patient’s advance is sustained during the year under consideration, then the consequential effect has to be given in subsequent years by way of reducing the similar amount out of income offered in subsequent year. Otherwise it will amount to double assessment. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the patients’ advance has not been offered for taxation at all in subsequent year.- Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on failure to establish the genuineness of creditors - Held that:- The Assessing Officer, though had not mentioned under which provision the additions are being made. It appears that the said additions have been made u/s 68 of the Act because it is the only section under which any sum found credited in the books of account can be added back. In the case of Jatia Investment Co. [1992 (8) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA High Court] it is held that in case no cash has been received by the assessee, then no addition can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the AO has made addition of ₹ 56,25,000/- as bogus unsecured loans. In the balance sheet, the assessee had shown outstanding patients advances of ₹ 17,22,979/ - as liability, which was included under the head sundry creditors. The AO asked for the details of names of patients and certain other details in compliance to which the assessee expressed its inability contending that such type of details were not available. Consequently, the AO has made addition of ₹ 17,22,979/- on account of unexplained advances received from patients. In respect of sundry creditors outstanding at ₹ 1,88,14,222/-, the AO has also made addition in absence of confirmations. The IPD billing register checked by the AO revealed that certain bills were not reflected in the billing register leading to inference that the receipts were not included in the books of account. To protect the interest of revenue, an adhoc disallowance of ₹ 1,00,000/ - has been made. While examining the books of accounts in CD form, the AO noticed that as per journal voucher No.828 dated 31.03.2007, the IPD receipts of ₹ 78,87,060/- were debited in the receipt account instead of being credited. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nagar Rs.5,59,84,875.30 Rs.5,56,09,875.30 Mr.Rajendra Singh Nil Rs.60,00,000.00 Rs.5,59,84,875.30 Rs.6,16,09,875.30 Increase = ₹ 56,25,000.00 The assessee explained that both the directors are income-tax assesses since last so many years. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Nagar has PAN No. ADGPN5145E and Mr. Rajendra Singh has PAN No. AAVPN4992R. Both the directors are duly assessed to tax with Assessing Officer, Bulandshahr. The assessee stated that the statement of account of directors, in the books of the assessee, along with the copies of their respective bank statement with City Bank, Gurgaon where from, the amount was transferred to the assessee s account, were filed before the Assessing Officer. On the evening of 30th December 2009, i.e. the day before the completion of assessment, the Assessing Officer had required the assessee to justify the deposits made by the assessee-company and in response thereto the assessee had filed copies of their respective ITRs and the personal balance sheet of both the directors as were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ved Ram Sons out of withdrawal from the firm M/s Ved Ram Sons (registered firm) under debit to the HUF account on 1st June 2006. This cheque was credited to the account of Mr. Rajendra Singh in Citibank on 3rd June 2006 wherever the cheque issued by Mr. Rajendra Singh to the appellant-company was got cleared on 5th June 2006. 31st March, 2007 : The amount of ₹ 60,00,000/- was deposited by Mr. Rajendra Singh with the appellant-company vide cheque No. 011477. This cheque was cleared from the amount of Mr. Rajendra Singh maintained with Citibank on 16th April 2007 .. Prior to the clearance of this cheque from the account of Mr. Rajendra Singh, there is a deposit of ₹ 60 lakhs in the account of Mr. Rajendra Singh in Citibank on 13th April 2007. The credit in the Citibank account of Mr. Rajendra Singh on 13th April 2007 was made out of the amount transferred from the account of Mr. Gajendra Kumar, real brother of Mr. Rajendra Singh. To prove this fact, a photocopy of the account of Mr. Gajendra Kumar in Citibank is also enclosed, which is selfexplanatory. The confirmation of Mr. Gajendra Kumar is also enclosed. Mr. Gajendra Kumar is assessed to tax vide PAN No. AB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are as under. 6.2. The assessee runs a hospital and has IPD and OPD Divisions. In IPD, as and when a patient is admitted in the hospital for treatment, the attendants of the patient are asked to deposit some amount to cover up the intended cost of treatment. The amount deposited by the patient from time to time is credited in the patient s advance account. At the time of discharge of patient, the final bill is prepared and the advance so received from the patient from time to time is adjusted and is offered for taxation in the year in which the final bill is crystalised. This system of accounting is being followed by the appellant since its inception. The patient advance as on 31st March 2007 represents the amount received from the patients from time to time, who are yet to be discharged. The patient advance which was outstanding on 31st March,2007 has been adjusted against the final bills of patients raised at the time of discharge, which has been made in subsequent years and almost all the patient advance has been adjusted against the final bills raised at the time of discharge and offered for taxation in subsequent year. Before the CIT (Appeals), the assessee had filed na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... establish the genuineness of creditors. 7.1. The facts pertaining to the above ground are as under. 7.2. The details of Sundry Creditors amounting to ₹ 1,88,14,222/-outstanding as on 31st March 2007 as filed before the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) are as under: (i) Sundry creditors for equipment ₹ 29,01,028/- (ii) Sundry creditors for projects - ₹ 74,15,739/- (iii) Sundry creditors for expenses - ₹ 84,97,455/- ₹ 1,88,14,222/- TOTAL = Rs.1,88,14,222/- As far as item No. (i) is concerned, it is stated that, the assessee had not claimed any revenue expenditure against the purchases so made for equipment against which such sundry creditors are outstanding, but it has been capitalized under the fixed assets and the Assessing Officer, after verification thereof, has allowed the depreciation thereon. Item No. (ii) represents the sundry creditors for projects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spite of such exercises of verification, has not made any adverse comment on any of the account but contrary to that has simply tried to reiterate the stand of the then Assessing Officer made in assessment order. The CIT (Appeals), after considering the evidence, held that as far as the sundry creditors for equipment amounting to ₹ 29,01,028/- and sundry creditors for projects outstanding at ₹ 74,15,739/-, the assessee had not claimed any revenue expenditure against the purchases so made for equipments and capital expenditure for projects. Therefore, in respect of sundry creditors outstanding and corresponding to purchase of assets, neither any addition can be made u/s 37 or 41(1) of the Act and at the best the issue could be looked into from the angle of misappropriation of funds of company in the wake of bogus capital expenditure, but that is not the case of the Assessing Officer so much so the depreciation has been allowed by the Assessing Officer on acquisition of assets. The CIT (Appeals), after relying upon the judgment of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of YFC Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in 134 TTJ 167 held that merely due to non-filing of the confirmation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
