9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een decided by the Ld. CIT(A) by making following observation on page 20 of his order:- "I have gone through the finding given by A.O. in assessment order and remand report, written submissions of appellant and comments on remand report filed during appellate proceedings and I find that the expenses of Rs. 6.00,000/- was incurred on professional charges by the appellant paid to M/s Neuro Surgery Clinic in lieu of services rendered to appellant. The expenses incurred by appellant are incidental to his medical professional consultancy and same arc allowable expenses. The payment stated to be paid of Rs. 2,00,000/- through account payee cheque during the assessment year under consideration and Rs. 4,00,000/- shown as outstanding liability which was paid in subsequent year. The payments were duly reflected in the copy of bank account and books of accounts of appellant and the recipient M/s. Neuro Surgery Clinic has duly shown the receipts on account of professional charges from appellant in its ITR. Keeping in view of these facts I hold that the A.O. was not justified in disallowing the allowable professional expenses under the head of consultancy charges and the addition made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- under the head of medical pathology expenses and same is liable to be deleted. The A.O. is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/. Thus the appellant gets relief of Rs. 2,50,000/-." 9. From the above Para reproduced from the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is seen that regarding this expenditure also, categorical findings were given by Ld. CIT(A) that these expenses are incidental to assessee's professional activities and are allowable as business expenditure and payments were made through banking channel and the recipient M/s Medical Pathology Clinic has duly disclosed the receipts of this amount in its income tax return. Since Ld. DR of the Revenue could not controvert any of these findings of Ld. CIT(A), we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue also. Accordingly, Ground No.2 is also rejected. 10. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is as under:- "3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Lucknow has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of Repairs & maintenance at Rs. 1,84,720/-, ignoring the facts that no vouchers for purchase & maintenance of sanitary installation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 16. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that 20% disallowance out of vehicle expenses was made by the AO on adhoc basis, but this fact is noted by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee's wife and his son had owned two vehicles in their own names and the assessee denied using official cars for personal use. This fact is also noted by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not given any explanation in respect of non maintenance of log book of vehicle. Under these facts, Ld. CIT(A) has reduced the disallowance out of vehicle expenses from 20% made by the AO to 10%. Considering the facts as discussed above, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, ground no.4 is also rejected. 17. Ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is as under:- "5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Lucknow has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition made on account of professional income of Rs. 29,26,650/- relaying on submission of the assessee made before him and without giving any finding. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the ITI's factual enquiry report regarding private practice of assessee being don ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der this head is considered unjustified and same is liable to be deleted. The A.O. is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 29,26,650/-. Thus the appellant gets relief of Rs. 29,26,650/-." 20. From the above paras, we find that categorical finding has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO did not bring any material on record, which could prove that the assessee has violated the terms and condition of professional and technical services contract made with Sahara Hospital from which the assessee has disclosed net professional income at Rs. 1,28,81,200/-. He has also given a finding that the AO has taken the professional receipt without conducting the necessary enquiries and without bringing any material on record to justify the huge undisclosed professional receipts of Rs. 43,80,000/-. Based on these findings, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the net income of Rs. 29,26,650/- out of professional receipt alleged by the AO of Rs. 43.80 lakh by holding that this addition is without any basis and therefore, not justified. Ld. DR of the Revenue could not controvert any of these findings of Ld. CIT(A) and could not point out that any material have been brought on record by the AO in support of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted by the Ld. CIT(A) that as per assessee, two electric meters are installed separately at his residence. Considering these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue also because when separate electric meters are installed at the residence of the assessee, it cannot be said that electric from official meter was used for residential purpose without bringing any adverse material on record. Accordingly, Ground No.7 is also rejected. 27. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 28. Now we take up CO of the assessee. 29. The grounds raised by the assessee in the CO are as under:- "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) is fully justified in deleting the addition of Rs, 29,26,650/- as the ground no0 5 taken by the department is factually incorrect in as much as the Id. CIT(A) has duly discussed the addition in the appellate order and given finding thereon. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) is fully justified in deleting the addition of Rs.l,00,000/- as the ground no. 6 taken by the department is also factually incorrect in as much as evidence of holding of agriculture land in form of khasra, khatauni of the agriculture land was duly submitted befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
