9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that he is not interested in prosecuting this ground and hence, the same is dismissed. 4. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the estimation suppressed professional receipts added by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) at Rs. 10,00,000/-and another Rs. 1,00,000/- from out-patient department in Breach Candy Hospital. For this assessee has raised following ground No.2 and 3: - "2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer in making an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on estimated basis as suppressed professional receipts without appreciating the evidence brought on record. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of suppressed receipts from out-patient's department in Breach Candy Hospital without appreciating the facts of the case." 5. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is outpatient Doctor practicing from last 28 years. The assessee has consulting chamber at Bombay Mutual Terrace, Opera House Mumbai. The assessee also attends Breach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written submission that consultant Charges were between Rs. 600 to Rs. 700/- Since doctor has argued that two or three vaccines are administered to patient at a time) hence Even if we presume that only 3500 patients were administered vaccine by the doctor then also the consultation charges received by the doctor comes to 3500*700=24,500001-. Whereas the consultation charges shown by the assesse is only Rs. 37,33,5191-. However, as mentioned earlier that assessee has not just seen patients for vaccination but must have seen other patients. The difference is 3733519-2450000=128519. If we divide 128519 by 700 than it is 1833. it means only 1833 patients were seen by the doctor during the year for other than Vaccine There were 280 working days, means only 6 patients were seen by doctor in a day for other than vaccine. Also for vaccines he has seen only 12(35001280=12.5) patients in a day. Thus total he has seen only 19 patients in a day. It has already been mentioned there was a pediatrician Assistant Doctor. In the appointment Diary there were around 28 to 35 patients in a day. However, it has already been mentioned that the appointment dairy do not contain all the name of the patien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t least 30 patients per day in his clinic for an average period of 280 working days which means the collection at the clinic (excluding the vaccination charges) would be more than Rs. 50 lakhs, iii) as ascertained by the AO, the appellant has given vaccination treatment to around 9000 children and if the margin charged by the appellant is considered, the profit element in the vaccination charges would be around more than Rs. 9,00,000I-, iv) further, the AO has observed that the receipts shown by the appellant are only Rs. 37,33,519/- and hence the suppression of receipts would be between Rs. 21,46,481/- to Rs. 13,06,481/-. On account of these facts therefore, the estimation of suppression of receipts by the AO at Rs. 10,00,000I- is quite conservative and the same deserves to be upheld. I hold accordingly. page 21 CIT(A) ." 5.1 As discussed in the preceding ground of appeal, the AO collected information from the Breach Candy Hospital. It was informed by the Hospital that the appellant had seen 525 patients in the OPD of the Breach Candy Hospital, for which the consultation charges were directly collected by the appellant. These consultation charges were not shown by the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee at Rs. 3,00,000/- is fair and reasonable. This estimation is for both the addition and AO is directed to add a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- instead of Rs. 11,00,000/-. This two connected issues are allowed partly. 9. The next issue in this appeal of assessee against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance of foreign travel expenses of wife. For this assessee has raised following ground No.4: - "4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,57,979/- incurred on foreign traveling by the appellant without appreciating the facts of the case." 10. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstance of the case. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee travelled to US along with his wife Dr. Sheila Balsekhar and incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 7,15,958/-. The assessee admitted that 50% expense pertains to assessee's wife i.e. Rs. 3,57,797/-. According to AO, the assessee travelled to US for the purpose of profession but wife's expenditure can be claimed only in the hand of the wife and not in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, he disallowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
