9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary to law, unjust, and against facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld CIT (A) failed to note that the Ld. AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act, based on oral statement of one Ms. Subhadra, Manager (Operations) of Apollo Hospital, who had no locus standi nor access to the authentic data or records of patients to give* such statement and without having any valid material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment and thus, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is ab initio void. 3. The addition was based on unverified statements gathered by Investigation Wing, and the same being not put to any verification by the Ld.AO while passing the orders u/s 143(3) rws 147, with an addition of Rs.8,08,400/- as income allegedly escaped from returns, whereas, the appellant has filed his return of income based on data furnished by the Hospital. 4. The Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT (A) failed to consider that the follow-up patients and many categories of patients were not charged by the appellant doctor. 5. For the above reasons and other reasons that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the Order u/s 250 by the CIT(A) may kindly be quashed and justice be rend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the appointments are not billed and all inpatients are not charged for follow-up consultations. Further, no fee is charged for revisits on humanitarian grounds and no fees is charged on references from VIPs, friends, Government officials, hospital staff etc. If all such exclusions are removed, the gross receipts would tally. The assessee also submitted that it charged consultation fee of Rs.200/- per patient and not Rs.400/- per patient as alleged. 3.4 The requisite information was gathered from Apollo Hospital u/s 133(6) which include list of outpatients for whom appointment was provided by the assessee. The data obtained from the hospital included the name of the patient, appointment date and time taken, visit time and concluding time which was separately maintained for each doctor. It was further stated that the doctors are free to charge outpatient fee based on their experience and credentials. The hospital provided the details of outpatients consulted by the doctor during AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 as per the appointment module in CD format. The information was also collected from Assessing Officer of M/s. Apollo Hospitals. 3.5 A sworn statement was recorded from Smt. G. Subh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s considered by AO Difference 2011-12 250 500 7522 4104 3418 2012-13 250 500 5818 5765 53 2013-14 350 500 8909 8898 11 2014-15 350 500 7181 7181 - 2015-16 500 500 5199 5199 - 2016-17 500 500 4263 3220 1043 Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The assessee reiterated that as a general practice, any doctor would charge only for first consultation but the subsequent or review consultation would be free of charge. It was also submitted that no fee is charged from hospital employees, their family and friends and government officials and VIPs. Further, Smt. G. Subhadra has given a statement that the data was collected from October, 2012 onwards and she did not have the data from 2010-11. Further, she was not authorized by the hospital, in this regard, which is clear from the recorded statement. The statement is a general statement and would not apply for each and every doctor. Further, she had no authentic information. 4.2 However, rejecting the same, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Ld. AO as under: - 4.6 I have duly considered the reply of the appellant. It is more or less the same reply as filed during the assessment proceedings. It is to be noted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... changed. Q4. Please provide me the details of number of outpatients treated in this hospital from the year 2009? Ans: I have asked our IT team to collect the details and I will be submitting the same by today as softcopy. Q5 Whether the cash collection is routed through the books of accounts of Apollo hospitals. If not why? Ans: The fees collected by the employed doctors of Apollo hospitals (i.e.) 7 doctors in the nephrology department are booked in the accounts of Apollo hospitals. The fees collected by the remaining doctors are not booked in our accounts. The non- employee doctors have their discretion to fix their fees. They pay monthly rent of Rs.13,800 p.m. presently. In case of part-time Doctors, the rent is charged on an hourly basis. The fees charged by the non-employee doctors are not booked in the accounts of Apollo hospitals even before I took over. I am continuing the same procedure. Dr. Satyabhama, Director of Medical Services only has the final say regarding the fees of non-employee doctors and whether or not to book the same in the accounts of Apollo hospitals. Q6 Please provide the details of consultation fees received by the doctors for the consultat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arged patients also". The same supports the submissions of the assessee. 8. Pertinently, the assessee is a regular Income Tax Payer and works only in Apollo Hospital. His income averages to more than Rs.50 Lacs per year which could be tabulated as under: - AY Gross Fees as per Profit & Loss Account (Lacs) Gross Total Income Declared (Lacs) Net Taxable Income Declared (Lacs) 2011-12 71.31 45.04 43.89 2012-13 80.90 52.01 51.82 2013-14 92.55 53.85 51.29 2014-15 97.60 60.81 59.51 2015-16 98.48 58.16 56.21 2016-17 88.73 47.55 45.35 Based on above tabulation, it could not be accepted that the assessee would attempt to conceal income as estimated by Ld. AO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Odeon Builders (P) Ltd (2019) 110 Taxmann.com 64 (SC) has held that no addition can be made on the basis of third-party information gathered by the Investigation Wing of the Department. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned additions are not sustainable in law and therefore, we delete the impugned additions for all the years. Though the assessee has taken grounds challenging the validity of assessment proceedings also, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
