9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if we go by the decoding of the code as done by the Revenue, as argued by the Ld. AR and rightly also, there is no reason as to why we should stop at our select the 2nd position to fasten the liability or to conclude that the doctor received the amount. It could equally be possible that the hospital might have received such amount in respect of a particular patient attended by such Doctor to use such instrument. This possibility cannot be ruled out. When there are more possibilities than one, and many of such possibilities exclude the involvement of a particular person suggesting the involvement of somebody else also, in our considered opinion it would be unreasonable to conclude that such person who also been exonerated by one of the possibilities, to have received the commission. As rightly argued on behalf of the assessee, this code could also be indicative of a transaction and for the purpose of identification of transaction, the name of the hospital/name of the doctor/name of the instrument so on and so forth could have been noted in respect of the commission paid. Without any supporting material supplying a direction to this entry towards the doctor and doctor alone, is unre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia. It further establishes that, when once the very allegation of cash commission is ruled out, no further inference could be drawn against the doctors to say that they have received such non-est commission. No merit in the argument of the Revenue and accordingly, hold that the addition cannot be sustained. Consequently, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional heart Institute. Ld. AR argues that except the surmises and conjectures of the learned Assessing Officer, there is no concrete material to connect this code with the assessee and there are any number of possibilities disturbing this interpretation. He submitted that there is no corroborating evidence from any quarter to pinpoint this interpretation adopted by the Revenue. Ld. AR submitted that there are possibilities that any cash was actually given to some other person who may be the partner of the firm M/s. Cardio Technovention and for siphoning of profits of the form, the hospital; National Heart Institute as discount on purchases; the purchase manager at the hospital for placing the order, the accounts personnel at the hospital for releasing payments, in a trustee of the hospital, a new employee at the hospital, the patient who was operated upon, the vendor from home stands were purchased, any other facilitator or mediator so on and so forth. He therefore submits that it would be unreasonable to conclude that the amount to reach the assessee, without any foolproof evidence. 5. He further submitted that according to the Revenue M/s. Cardio Technovention had shown certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to conclude that such person who also been exonerated by one of the possibilities, to have received the commission. As rightly argued on behalf of the assessee, this code could also be indicative of a transaction and for the purpose of identification of transaction, the name of the hospital/name of the doctor/name of the instrument so on and so forth could have been noted in respect of the commission paid. Without any supporting material supplying a direction to this entry towards the doctor and doctor alone, is unreasonable and such an entry does not take us anywhere more particularly to point out the doctor to have received the commission. 8. Apart from this, it could be seen from the record and the orders in case of M/s. Cardio Technovention that the plea of the Revenue was that the commission that was paid to the agent through banking channels was received back by M/s. Cardio Technovention in cash to pay the same to the doctors. In the order for the assessment year 2014-15 in the case of M/s. Cardio Technovention, in appeal, Ld. CIT(A) on a consideration of the entire material reached the conclusion that in respect of the commission paid to the agent, the same was confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
