9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and delete the addition made by the AO. The appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground. As evident from the ledger account, profit and loss account and the note submitted by the assessee that the assessee had admitted the sum of 16,82,445/- towards his share from the SSDH upto December 2010 which was more than the admission made by the assessee u/s 132(4) and also the share of his receipts worked out by the AO. AO has not given a finding that the assessee has received more than 16,82,445/- and not admitted by the assessee. Merely because the statement u/s 132(4) was given, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee without any supporting evidence. Since the assessee has admitted the entire receipts upto December 2010 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 27. 9. 2011 as the return in response to the notice issued u/s 148 on 31. 12. 2012. The AO took up the case for scrutiny and on verification, found that R. K. Childrens Hospital and Perinatal Centre (Sri Sai Dhanvantri Healthcare Pvt. Ltd (SSDH) ) has collected the amounts from the patients admitted in the hospital in the name of 'Doctors fees' but the same was not disclosed as receipts in the regular books of accounts maintained by the assessee company. The AO further observed that the Doctors fee was actually charged from the patients admitted in hospital and appropriated among three Doctors of the hospital. The assessee who happens to be the Managing Director of SSDH accepted in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the I. T. Act that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,94,065/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted that the amounts collected from the in patients of hospital i. e. SSDH in the name of Doctors fee was admitted in the return of income filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted before the CIT(A) that at the time of conducting the search the assessee was not maintaining the books of accounts and later on the assessee reconstructed the books of accounts and accounted the receipts, hitherto which were unaccounted under the head 'Doctors fee'. Therefore, no further addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee separately. However, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee in his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pts in the books accounts as well as in the return of income filed on 27. 9. 2011, thus there is no suppression of income and no requirement to make the addition separately either for ₹ 10. 00 lacs or for ₹ 16,51,815/-, since the assessee admitted more than the said amounts. The assessee has filed a paper book and furnished the copy of the note submitted before the AO in page No. 15 and 16, wherein, he had stated to have admitted a sum of ₹ 16,82,445/- as Consultancy Receipts received from SSDH. Apart from the receipts upto December 2010, the assessee also admitted the receipts for the subsequent period i. e. from January to March 2011 in the ledger account and furnished the copy of the ledger account in Page No. 19 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriated by the assessee and two other Doctors, as admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in response to Q. 13 on 22. 02. 2011. The share of the assessee from the undisclosed doctors fee collected from patients was worked out to ₹ 16,51,815/- according to AO. At the time of conducting the search the assessee was not maintaining the books of accounts, but by the time the assessee filed the return of income the assessee reconstructed the books of accounts and duly accounted the receipts which were unaccounted under the head 'Doctors fees'. The assessee has produced the books of accounts and shown the ledger account of undisclosed receipts on account of doctors fee collected from the patients. The assessee's c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4) and also the share of his receipts worked out by the AO. The AO has not given a finding that the assessee has received more than ₹ 16,82,445/- and not admitted by the assessee. Merely because the statement u/s 132(4) was given, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee without any supporting evidence. Since the assessee has admitted the entire receipts upto December 2010 and for the subsequent period and filed the return of income, we hold that no separate addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee on account of Doctors fees. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the addition made by the AO. The appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground. disputed the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
