9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 11,07,238/- of the duplicate bills, the relief could not have been granted only to the extent of Rs. 4,22,595/-. Therefore, the assessee should have been granted the reduction of Rs. 6,84,643/- out of repetitive bills over and above Rs. 30 lakhs. As per the information available on record, the assessee should be granted reduction of the professional fees paid of Rs7,62,730/- and repetitive bills of Rs. 6,84,643/-. Therefore, the assessee deserves the benefit of Rs. 14,47,343/- out of the total addition made of Rs. 19,26,634/-. Therefore, we direct the Learned Assessing Officer to retain the addition of Rs. 4,79,261/- out of the total addition of Rs. 19,26,634/-. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the assessee has disclosed the income during the course of survey at Rs1,62,88,607/-, whereas in the return of income it was disclosed at Rs. 1,43,61,973/-. The Learned Assessing Officer made an addition of difference of Rs. 19,26,634/- in the assessment order passed on 17/12/2019. 06. The assessee contested the above addition in appeal before the Learned CIT-A. The Learned CIT-A considered the above explanations vide paragraphs No.10 to 15, as under: "10. The claim of the appellant is that the gross receipts of Rs. 4,17,00,000/- as quantified during survey, should be reduced by the following amounts: i) Duplicate bill entry Rs. 51,79,936/- ii) Discounts Rs. 22,07,238/- iii) Professional fee paid Rs. 7,62,730/- Total Rs. 81,49,904/- Accordingly, the appellant has declared the professional fees received in the PL Account at Rs. 3,34,93,430/-. A perusal of the statement recorded during the survey clearly suggests that the gross receipts at that time were worked out at Rs. 4,17,00,000/-, which has not been disputed by the appellant till date. If we reduce the claim of the appellant amounting to Rs. 81,49,904/- from Rs. 4,17,00,000/-, the resulting figure comes to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the P/L Account. In view of these facts, it is held that the appellant has failed to substantiate that the amount of Rs. 7,62,730/- should be reduced from the amount of Rs. 4,17,00,000/- while quantifying the professional receipts during the year. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant is rejected. 13. The next contention of the appellant is that the Assessing Officer did not allow the benefit of Rs. 11,07,238/- on account of discount given to the patient. As discussed above, the appellant has claimed that a total discount of Rs. 22,07,238/- was given to various patients and therefore, this amount should be reduced from the figure of Rs. 4,17,00,000/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has allowed the benefit of Rs. 11,00,000/- and the benefit of balance Rs. 11,07,238/- was denied by him. In this connection, the appellant has submitted details of discount given to various patients. These details were verified by the undersigned on a test check basis and it is found that the claim of the appellant is not entirely correct as explained below: (i) A bill of Rs. 3,15,610/- was raised for the patient Shri Ramji Singh. As per the table furnished by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te bill details in separate paper book. Assessee contended that the assessee has submitted reconciliation of professional fees, ledger account of professional fees payment, ledger account of discount on professional fees and further sample copies of the bill, but the Learned authorities below have not considered the explanation of the assessee. He submitted that at the time of survey, all the details were available on record in the books of account. Therefore, the same should have been accepted. Further, he submitted the month-wise details of repetitive bills containing 319 pages. He also submitted that such repetitive bills should have been accepted for reduction from the computation of total income. He also submitted that the statement of Shri Mohan More, partner of the assessee firm was recorded on 14/9/2017, wherein in answer to question No.6, he submitted the professional trial balance and details of expenditure. In response to question No.5, he also submitted the payments made to the Doctors. Accordingly, he submitted that all these details are available during the course of assessment proceedings only. He further referred to the statement of the same person recorded on 14/9/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the difference of income worked out during the course of survey of Rs. 1,62,88,607/- and the amount of income declared in the return of income of Rs. 1,43,61,973/- i.e. Rs. 19,26,634/- was added to the income of the assessee. 11. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee gave details of duplicate bill entries of Rs. 51,79,936/- and discount of Rs. 22,07,238/-. Further, a sum of Rs. 7,62,730/- as professional fees paid to the Doctors. The amount of discount and professional fees paid was reduced from the gross receipt in the books of accounts of the assessee. For duplicate bills, the assessee has submitted month-wise chart of patients and the details of repetitive bills. The assessee has also submitted the ledger accounts of discount and professional fess, which are placed at pages 55 to 67 of the paper book. Further, at pages 27 to 37 of the paper book, the assessee has submitted the complete reconciliation of gross receipts shown as well as the professional fees paid along with duplicate bills. In the ledge account of professional fees paid, the assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 29,65,454/- which is reduced from the gross receipts. This sum includes disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
