DCIT,Circle-1(1), Chandigarh V. Dr.Mrs. Baljit Kaur, Chandigarh

ITA 148/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4064 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C CHANDRAKANTA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 133A; 201; 13; 22; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH , ! ' # $ %! , BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH. DR.MRS.BALJIT KAUR PROP. M/S DR.SHAMER SINGH MEMORIAL DIAGONOSTIC CENTRE, SCF NO.13-14, SECTOR 16, CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: ACEPK3689F /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADV. ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.C.CHANDRAKANTA, CIT ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 24.08.2021 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.10.2021 (HEARING THROUGH WEBEX) /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX(APPEALS)-1, CHANDIGARH [(IN SHORT THE LD.CIT(A )] DATED 20.11.2019 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, PAS SED U/S ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 2 OF 27 250(6) OF THE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A RADIO DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE IN SE CTOR 16- D, CHANDIGARH. THE ASSESSEE IS A RADIOLOGIST AND IN HER CENTRE VARIOUS MACHINES LIKE USG SCAN, C7 SCAN AND X-RAY ARE INSTALLED. FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR, RETURN DECLAR ING INCOME OF RS.39,97,350/- WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT HAD BEEN CONDUCTED ON TH E CENTRE ON 04.03.2014 AND A LARGE NUMBER OF DOCUMENT S WERE IMPOUNDED. THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,37,41,670/- A FTER MAKING ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING SURVEY. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A ) WHO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION BE FORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (ITSC) FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS I.E. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 AND SUCCEE DING YEAR 2014-15 WHICH HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ITSC VIDE ORDER DATED 23.11.2015 PASSED U/S 245D(4) OF T HE ACT. ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 3 OF 27 HE NOTED THAT MOST OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSE D IN THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITSC WERE SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE S FORMING PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL. ACCORDIN GLY, BASED ON THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITSC HE DECIDED T HE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT IMPUGNED YEAR ALSO AND PARTLY ALLOWE D THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS NOW COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS AS PER REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE US: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITIO N TO RS.82,84,275/- ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.3,06,71,903/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS WITH THE FOLLOWIN G OBSERVATIONS: A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE STATEMEN T RECORDED OF SH. RAVINDER KUMAR AND THE ASSESSEE HERSELF, DURING THE SURVEY COULD NOT SHOW THAT ALL THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE REGISTERS/TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS WERE ULTIMATELY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. B) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN EXTRAPOLATING THE RECEIPTS ONLY BY 54% IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF HONBLE ITSC IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2014- 15 WHEREIN THE PERCENTAGE OF RECEIPTS WAS ARRIVED AT 54% BY THE HON'BLE ITSC ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL AND CASH RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS SPECIFIC TO THE A.Y. 2014-15 ONLY. C) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE INSTANT ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 4 OF 27 CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2013- 14 IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH A.Y. 2010-11. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15A S THIS YEAR WAS NOT DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ITSC AND THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND GIVE THE BENEFIT OF EXPENSES @29% ON GROSS EXTRAPOLATED RECEIPTS WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE/PROOF SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6544200/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS ON WHICH COMMISSION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY NOT MENTIONING IN THE ORDER TO SHOW HOW THE DOUBLE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WHEREAS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENT IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS IE. HAND WRITTEN DIARIES AS 'A-53. A-54 AND A-55' AND IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS I.E. REGISTERS AS 'A-22, A-25 AND A-24'. 4. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 994760/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN RECEIPTS UNDER THE HEAD 'ESIC' WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ENTRIES MENTIONED IN IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT A-16 FOR RS. 852741/- (FOR APRIL 2012 TO D EC. 2012} & A-20 FOR RS. 845638/- (FOR APRIL 2012 TO DE C. 2012) ARC ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT AS IT CAN BE SEEN F ROM THE AO'S ORDER THAT IN THE DOCUMENT A-16 FOR THE MONTH OF OCT. 2012 THERE IS RECEIPT AMOUNT OF RS ,5198 AS 'ESIC RAMDARBAR BILLS' BUT IN THE DOCUMENT A-20, RECEIPT OF AMOUNT OF RS.845638/- IS FROM 'ESIC BADDI'. 5. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 129255/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS FROM KIDNEY & URO CENTRE, BY NOT RIGHTLY INTERPRETING THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE AYS. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 WHEREIN THE RONNIE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAD OBSERVED THAT THE EXTRAPOLATION EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT APPEARS TO BE ON THE RIGHT LINE. FURTHER IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE AYS 2011-12, 2012-13 AND 2014-15 HAD OFFERED 2 LAC IN EACH ASSESSMENT ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 5 OF 27 YEAR TOTALING TO RS. 6 LAC AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. 5.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO. 5 MENTIONED ABOVE, THE LD. CIT{A) HAS ERRED BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. 6. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 643563/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS FROM MUKUT HOSPITAL BY NOT RIGHTLY INTERPRETING THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THEINCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE AYS. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAD OBSERVED THAT THE EXTRAPOLATION EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT APPEARS TO BE ON THE RIGHT LINE. FURTHER IT IS ALSO A MATTE R OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE AYS 2011-12, 2012-13 AND 2014-15 HAD OFFERED 2 LAC IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR TOTALING TO RS. 6 LAC AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. 6.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO. 6 MENTIONED ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. 5. AT THE OUTSET LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT DURING SURVEY OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS RELATING TO A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2014- 15 WERE FOUND. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS WILLING TO FIL E PETITION BEFORE THE ITSC FOR ALL THE YEARS, BUT BEFORE IT CO ULD FILE THE PETITION FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR, I.E. A.Y 2013-14,AS SESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FRO M FILING PETITION FOR THIS YEAR WHILE THE PETITION WAS FILED FOR THE ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 6 OF 27 REMAINING YEARS AND ORDER PASSED BY THE ITSC DATED 22-12- 2016 U/S 245D(4) OF THE ACT. HE CONTENDED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL THE YEARS WAS THE SAME AND THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME HAD PARTLY ALL OWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) BUT HAD SUBSEQUENTLY AVAILED THE BENEFIT OF VIVAD SE VISHWA S SCHEME AND ITS APPEAL ACCORDINGLY WAS TREATED AS WITHDRAWN VIDE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 31-08-2020. 5.1 THEREAFTER ARGUMENTS WERE MADE BY BOTH THE PART IES ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US. 6. GROUND NO.2 (A-D), IT WAS POINTED OUT RELATED T O THE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 3,06,71,903/- WHICH WAS RESTRICTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) TO RS.82,84,275/-. 7. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT DURI NG SURVEY DOCUMENTS A-22, 24 AND 25 WERE IMPOUNDED. TH ESE WERE REGISTERS IN WHICH DAILY CASH RECEIPTS WERE RE CORDED ALONGWITH THE NAME OF THE PATIENT AND THE DESCRIPTI ON OF THE DIAGNOSTIC TEST. THE SUMMARIZED TOTAL OF THESE RECE IPTS IN THE THREE DOCUMENTS IS AS UNDER: ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 7 OF 27 PERIOD TOTAL(IN RS.) A-22 NOV. 2012 61,32,820/- A-25 DEC. 2012 42,16,260/- A-24 JAN. 2013 36,65,820/- TOTAL 1,40,14,900/ - 7.1 THE THREE MONTHS CASH WAS PROJECTED BY THE AO TO ARRIVE AT THE ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.5,60,59,6 00/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPARED THE PROJECTED RECEIPTS W ITH THE ACTUAL RECEIPTS RECORDED IN THE AUDIT REPORT SUBMIT TED. AS PER THE BOOKS THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL CASH REC EIPTS UNDER THE HEAD PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AT RS.2,53,87, 697/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE PROFESSIONAL R ECEIPTS WERE NOT FULLY RECORDED IN THE FINAL ACCOUNTS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXTRAPOLATED RECEIPT S AND THAT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF RS.3,06,71,903/- WAS AD DED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE 8. THE LD.CIT(A) NOTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD BEE N DISCUSSED BY THE HON'BLE ITSC IN ITS ORDER U/S 245D (4) OF THE ACT PERTAINING TO PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEAR , ALONGWITH THE ISSUE OF COMMISSION PAID TO FELLOW DO CTORS AND UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE AT PARAS 7 TO 8 OF THE ORDE R. HE NOTED FROM THE SAME THAT THE HON'BLE ITSC HAD ACCEP TED THE ASSESSEES PLEA BEFORE IT THAT THE IMPOUNDED DOCUME NTS ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 8 OF 27 REPRESENTED HER UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THE HON'BLE ITS C HAD ALSO ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CALCULATION OF THE SAM E ON THE BASIS OF TAKING FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15) AS THE BASE YEAR SINCE IN THAT YEAR DOCUME NTS REPRESENTING UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS FOR 10 MONTHS (JU NE TO MARCH) WERE IMPOUNDED. FROM THESE DOCUMENTS IT HAD BEEN WORKED OUT THAT ONLY 54% OF HER ACTUAL RECEIPTS WER E ACCOUNTED FOR IN HER BOOKS. FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2013 -14 THE ACTUAL GROSS RECEIPTS WERE RS.3.65 CRORES WHILE ONL Y RS.1.97 CRORES WERE RECORDED IN REGULAR BOOKS. THE BASIS WO RKED OUT AT 54%, THEREFORE, WAS THEN APPLIED TO FINANCIAL Y EARS 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2011-12 AND 2014-15 TO PROJECT HER TOT AL RECEIPT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE PAPERS WI TH RESPECT TO FULL PERIOD OF THESE YEARS WERE IMPOUNDED OR NOT . TAKING NOTE OF THE SAME THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED YEA R CALCULATED THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,20,38,026/- AND AFTER ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF CASH EXPENSES, BEING 29% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS ALLOW ED BY THE HON'BLE ITSC ALSO, CALCULATED THE ADDITION TO BE SU STAINED OF RS.82,84,275/- THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT( A) AT PARAS 5.3.3 OF THE ORDER IS AS UNDER: ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 9 OF 27 5.3.3. FOLLOWING THE PARA 8.3 OF HON'BLE 1TSC ORDER DATED 22.12.2016, CALCULATION HAS BEEN MADE BY CONS IDERING THE RECEIPTS FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER & DECEMBER, 2012 AND JANUARY, 2013 AS WORKED OUT BY THE OFFICE OF THE UN DERSIGNED, AS PER BELOW : A) TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS (ACCOUNTED AND UNACCOUNTED) RS.1,18,16,367/- LESS CASH RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS RS.61,58,105/- -------------------- UNDISCLOSED CASH RECEIPTS FOR THREE MONTHS AS ABOVE RS.56,58,262/- --------------------- B) THE RATIO AS DECIDED BY HON'BLE ITSC AS PER PARA 8.3 PAGE NO 14 THAT THE TOTAL UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS WERE 46 %. TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS FOR THE BALANCE PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION EXCLUDING NOV 2012, DEC 20 12 AND JAN 2013 FOR WHICH NO RECORD WAS IMPOUNDED. THE CASH RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS WERE RS.1 92,29,592/- AND THE SAME IS EXTRAPOLATED BY 54% ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL AND THE TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS WORKS TO RS.3,56,09,356/-(19229 592/54%). TOTAL EXTRAPOLATED RECEIPTS FOR 9 MONTHS RS.3,56,0 9,356/- LESS CASH RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RS.1.92.29.592/- ----------------------- BALANCE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS FOR 9 MONTHS FOR F.Y. 12-13 RS.1.63.79.764/- ----------------------- C) TOTAL UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS (B+C) = 56.58,262+1,63,79.764 RS.2,20,38.026/- LESS 29% ON ACCOUNT OF CASH EXPENSES FROM RS.1,3 7,53,750/- GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER AS PER PARA 8.3.3 PAGE NO 15 (47425723= 35609356+11816367) @ 29% AS ALLOWED BY ITSC --------------------- BALANCE ADDITION TO BE SUSTAINED RS.82,84,275/- ---------------------- 9. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US IS T HAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY TO INCOME T AX ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 10 OF 27 PROCEEDINGS AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITSC WHILE CALCULATING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIP TS OF THE IMPUGNED YEAR. 10. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) W HO HAS ,WE HOLD, RIGHTLY CALCULATED THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR FOLLOWING THE BASIS ACCEPTED BY THE ITSC IN THE PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEARS. 12. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ITS CALCULATION TO THE ITSC OF UNACCOUNTE D RECEIPTS BASIS DOCUMENTS FOUND RELATING TO A.Y. 201 4-15 SINCE THEY REPRESENTED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS FOR 10 MONTHS. THE PERCENTAGE SO WORKED OUT WAS APPLIED TO THE RES T OF THE YEARS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT DOCUMENTS RELAT ING TO THE WHOLE OF THE SAID YEARS WAS IMPOUNDED OR NOT. THE ITSC FOUND THE SAID DECLARATION OF THE ASSESSEE, AS COR RECT AND IN ORDER FOR ALL THE YEARS AND IN FACT FOUND IT TO BE MORE THAN THE FIGURES AS WORKED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT. T HE ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 11 OF 27 SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM OF EXPENSES @ 29% OF THE RECEIPTS FOR ALL TH E YEARS. THE DEPARTMENT, IT HAS BEEN STATED AT BAR, HAS ACCE PTED THE ORDER OF THE ITSC ESTIMATING UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS F OR THE PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEARS . 13. THE ITSC, ACCORDINGLY, PASSED ITS ORDER ON THE ISSUE ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING THE BEST POSSIBLE METHOD OF ESTIMATING THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME, BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SURVEY REVEALING THE UNACCO UNTED RECEIPTS. THE SAME SET OF DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO T HE IMPUGNED YEAR, FORM THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE IN T HE IMPUGNED YEAR. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS IN THE IMPUGNED YE AR THEREFORE, WE AGREE WITH THE LD.CIT(A), ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE YEARS BEFORE THE ITSC. THE REVENUE ADMITTEDLY HAS ACCEPTED THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE ITSC. THERE IS NO REASON THEREFORE WHY A DIFFERENT BASIS NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED FOR ESTI MATING UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR. 14. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE IMPUG NED GROUNDS 2 (A-D) RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE US AND DISMISS THE SAME. ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 12 OF 27 15. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO TH E ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS O N WHICH COMMISSION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DELET ED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 16. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURI NG THE SURVEY, DOCUMENTS A-53, A-54, A-55 WERE IMPOUNDED. THESE DOCUMENTS CONTAINED DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO DOC TORS AS COMMISSION. THIS FACT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER RECORDED STATEMENT DURING SURVEY. SHE ALSO INDICATE D THAT RATE OF COMMISSION VARIED FROM 10-40%. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WORKED OUT THE TOTAL COMMISSION PAID TO VAR IOUS DOCTORS AT RS.6,54,420/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FUR THER MADE POST SURVEY INQUIRIES AND FOUND OUT THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO REFERRING DOCTORS AT THE RAT E OF 10% OF THE TOTAL CHARGES OF THE DIAGNOSTIC TESTS PRESCR IBED. WORKING BACKWARDS THE ASSESSING OFFICE, ESTIMATED T HE RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT ON THE COMMISSION PAID A ND PROJECTED THE TOTAL UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS OF THE ASS ESSEE AT RS.65,44,200/- BASED ON COMMISSION PAID @ 10% AND A DDED IT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 13 OF 27 17. THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE ISSUE OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT S HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED PAPERS AND SAME ADDITION ON THE ISSUE OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS BY ADOPTING A DIFFERENT METHOD ONLY TANTAMOUNTED TO DO UBLE ADDITION. WHILE HOLDING SO, HE ADOPTED THE VIEW OF THE HON'BLE ITSC ON THE ISSUE FOR THE PRECEDING AND SUC CEEDING YEARS. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT PA RA 6.2 OF THE ORDER ARE AS UNDER: 6.2. HELD: I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUES OF ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED PAPERS. THERE C ANNOT BE DOUBLE ADDITION ON THE ISSUE OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT S USING .TWO DIFFERENT METHODS OF ADDITION. THIS VIEW IS IN LINE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE ITSC. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS.65,44,200/- IS DELETED GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 3 (A) & 3 (B) ARE ALLOWED. 18. BEFORE US THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TH E AO WHILE THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 19. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO GO NE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW.IT IS N OT DISPUTED THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNT ED RECEIPTS ALREADY STANDS MADE ON THE BASIS OF CASH RECEIPTS ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 14 OF 27 RECORDED IN DAILY CASH REGISTERS WHICH WERE IMPOU NDED DURING SURVEY. THE ADDITION NOW BEING MADE OF THE SAME BY ESTIMATION ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS REVEALING CO MMISSION PAID TO DOCTORS ,IS AS RIGHTLY STATED BY THE LD.CIT (A), NOTHING BUT ADOPTING A DIFFERENT METHOD FOR CALCULA TING THE SAME, UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY DEMONST RATED OTHERWISE, WHICH, WE FIND, IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE U S. EVEN THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WE FIND, HAS, ON IDENTICA L ISSUE, TAKEN THE SAME VIEW OF THIS BEING DOUBLE ADDITION I N THE PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEAR IN THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE, WHICH ORDER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. WE SE E NO REASON THEREFORE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE L D.CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.65,44,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE I S, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 20. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RE LATES TO ADDITION MADE OF RS.9,94,760/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFER ENCE IN RECEIPTS UNDER THE HEAD ESIC WHICH STOOD DELETED BY THE CIT(A). 21. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE AD DITION HAD ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 15 OF 27 BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS A-16 AND A-20, THE TOTAL OF WHICH WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.22,02 ,184/- . THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,07,476/- WAS REFLECTED IN THE P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY AD DED THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNTING TO RS.9,94,760/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 22. THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME HOLDING AT PARAS 9.2 TO 9.2.1 AS UNDER: 9.2. HELD: I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EXAMINED THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THA T THERE IS A DOUBLE TAXATION. IN THE TABLE ON PAGE 52 OF 56 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A SUMMARIZED TOTAL OF A-16 AND A-20, IN THE DESCRIPTION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS AN OVERLAP PERIOD . THE SUMMARIZED TOTAL IN A-16 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE RECEIPTS FROM APRIL 2012 TO FEBRUARY 2013. THE SUMMARIZED TOTAL OF A-20 IS A LUMP SUM TOTAL FO R TWO PERIODS APRIL 2012 TO DEC. 2012 AND APRIL 2013 TO D EC. 2013. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN AVERAGE FOR A MONTHS AND 3 MONTHS RESPECTIVELY. THE DETAILS ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- SI. DOCU MENT PERIOD TOTAL (IN DIFFERENC E (IN RS.) 1. A - 16 APRIL, 2012 TO DEC 2012 8,52,741/ - 2. A-20 APRIL, 2012 TO DEC. 2012 8,46.638/- (+) 7,103/- 3. A - 16 JAN.2013TOFEB.2013 2,02,4751 - 4. A-20 JAN. 2013 TO MARCH 2013 3,01 ,330/- (+)1,988,855/- 9.2.1. SINCE THE TOTAL OF HIGHER OF THE TWO AMOUNTS I.E. RS.8,52,741/- AND RS.3,01,330/- AMOUNTS TO RS.11,54 ,071/- IS COVERED BY AMOUNT OF RS.12,07,476/- REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,94,708/- MA DE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 7 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 16 OF 27 23. THE REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HA S ERRED BY DELETING ADDITION OF RS.9,94, 708/- TREATING IT AS DOUBLE ADDITION, WHEN IN FACT THE DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATED T HEY WERE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT. 24. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO AND AL SO THE LD.CIT(A). ON GOING THROUGH THE FACTS IN THE SAID O RDERS ,WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DEL ETING THE ADDITION ON FINDING IT TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF MERE D UPLICATION OF FIGURES MENTIONED IN THE TWO DOCUMENTS A-16 & A -20 IMPOUNDED. 25. THIS FACT, WE FIND , IS APPARENT FROM THE SUMM ARIZED TOTALS OF THE TWO ANNEXURES A-16 AND A-20. 26. THE TWO ANNEXURES ARE TABULATED IN THE ORDER OF THE AO AT PAGE 52 AS UNDER: ANNEXURE NO. PERIOD DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT RELEVANT TO THE A.Y.2013-14 A-16 APR- 12 ESIC BILLS 73141 73141 A-16 MAY- 12 ESIC BILLS 59771 59771 A-16 JUN-12 ESIC BILLS 77315 77315 A-16 JUL-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 108059 108059 A-16 AUG-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 93806 93806 A-16 SEP-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 119245 19245 A-16 OCT-12 ESIC RAMDARBAR BILLS 5198 5198 A-16 OCT-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 99732 99732 A-16 NOV-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 95913 95913 A-16 DE<;-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 120561 120561 A-16 JAN-13 ESIC BILLS BADDI 113789 113789 A-16 FEB-13 ESIC BILLS BADDI 88686 88686 A-20 APRIL20!2LODEC 2012 ESIC BADDI 845638 845638 ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 17 OF 27 A-20 JAN.+ 2013LO DEC. 2013 ESIC BADDI 1205328 301330 TOTAL 2202184 THE LD.CIT(A) SUMMARIZED THIS DATA AT PARA 9.2 OF H IS ORDER AS UNDER: SI. DOCU MENT PERIOD TOTAL (IN DIFFERENC E (IN RS.) 1. A - 16 APRIL, 2012 TO DEC 2012 8,52,741/ - 2. A-20 APRIL, 2012 TO DEC. 2012 8,46.638/- (+) 7,103/- 3. A - 16 JAN.2013TOFEB.2013 2,02,4751 - 4. A-20 JAN. 2013 TO MARCH 2013 3,01 ,330/- (+)1,988,855/- 27. THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED TO US ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE DATA AS SUMMARIZED BY THE LD.CIT(A).THE CONCLUS ION THEREFORE DRAWN FROM THE SAME BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE TWO DOCUMENTS CONTAINED OVERLAPPING DATA IS EVIDENT SI NCE A-16 DOCUMENT CONTAINED ESIC DATA FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1 2 TO FEB 13 WHILE DOCUMENT A-20 CONTAINED ESIC DATA FOR THE PERIOD APRIL12 TO MARCH13 ,THE DATA RELATING TO APRIL 12 TO FEB 13 THEREFORE OVERLAPPING .THE ENTIRE DATA RELATES TO B ADDI EXCEPT FOR A MEAGER AMOUNT OF RS.5198 WHICH RELATES TO RAMDARBAR. THE LD.CIT(A), BY ADOPTING A CONSERVATIV E APPROACH, HAS TAKEN THE GREATER OF THE OVERLAPPING FIGURES AND FOUND THE SAME AS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS O F THE ASSESSEE, THUS HOLDING THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED F OR ON THE BASIS OF THESE TWO DOCUMENTS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ME RIT IN THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE THAT THE TWO DOCUMENTS WERE ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 18 OF 27 DIFFERENT SINCE THE FACTS AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE DO NOT DEMONSTRATE ANYTHING TO ARRIVE AT THIS FINDING AND THE DIFFERENCE REFERRED TO BY THE REVENUE RELATING TO A N ENTRY RELATED TO RAMDARBAR IS TOO INCONSEQUENTIAL TO ADV ERSELY EFFECT THE OTHERWISE LOGICAL INFERENCE THAT THE TWO DOCUMENTS CONTAINED OVERLAPPING DATA. 28. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ESIC RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS.9,94,760/ - GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 29. GROUND NOS.5 & 5.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELAT ES TO THE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE OF RS.1,29,255/- ON ACC OUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AS PER DOCUMENTS A-14 & A-21 SHOWING INCOME RECEIVED FROM KUC READ AS KIDNEY A ND URO CENTRE A KNOWN HOSPITAL IN CHANDIGARH SECTOR-46. 30. THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME FINDING MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL RECEIPTS AS REF LECTED IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS STOOD DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN ITS BOOKS AND FURTHER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE ITSC ON ID ENTICAL ISSUE IN THE PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEAR HOLDING AS ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 19 OF 27 UNDER: 11.1 PER CONTRA: THE APPELLANT HAS MADE TH E FOLLOWING OBSERVATION WITH RESPECT TO THIS AMOUNT: 'I. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT A SUM OF RS.3,27,275/- IS ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT FROM 'KUC' AND OUT OF WHICH, ACCORDING TO HIM, RS. 1.93.020/- HAS BEEN RECORDED AND, AS SUCH, THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INCORRECT. II. FT IS FACT THAT RS.2,77,550/- IS DULY RECORDED AS PER CHART IS BEING FURNISHED HEREWITH EITHER IN THI S YEAR OR IN THE NEXT YEAR. III. WITH REGARD TO FIGURE OF RS. 25,225/-, I! IS S UBMITTED THAT IN THE ANNEXURE, THE FIGURE OF RS 13,000 STAND S RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THERE IS NO FIGURE OF RS 25225/- IV. THE FIGURE OF RS. 24.500/- IS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HENCE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FO R.' 11.1.1. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS GIVEN THE SAME OBSERVED AS UNDER; - 'DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS WERE PERUSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ANNEXURE-14,16,21 & 23 OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS RELATES TO RECEIPTS FROM INDUS HOSPITAL, KUC & MUKUT AND SOME HAND WRITTEN WORKINGS. THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM THE SAME WERE NOT IN CORRELATIO N WITH REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HENCE ADDITION WAS MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE A.O. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSES VIDE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ARE MERELY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND EXCEPT THE COMPUTERIZED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THESE PAR TIES, NO OTHER CONCRETE EVIDENCE/ DOCUMENT/ CONFIRMATION ETC. IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSES. T HE A. 0. AFTER A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT S AND GOING THROUGH THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAD MADE THE REQUISITE ADDITIO NS, WHICH APPEARS TO BE CORRECT AND THEREFORE, NO RELIA NCE CAN BE MADE ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSES.' ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 20 OF 27 11.1.2. IN REPLY FILED ON 19.07.2017, NO ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS WERE EXTENDED BY THE APPELLANT. 11.1.3 THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIO N, IN ITS ORDER MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- ..THE APPLICANT VIDE LETTER DATED 7 TH DECEMBER. 2016 SUBMISSION IN THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION. THE LETTER CAN BE QUOTED VERBATIM- 'WE HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED IN THE SOF AND AGAIN IN OUR REJOINDER THAT THERE ARE NO CASH RECEIPTS FROM THESE HOSPITALS AND ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE BY CHEQUES AND RATHER ON ACCOUNT OF NON-RECOVERING OF AMOUNT, WE HAVE TO WRITE OFF THE AMOUNT DUE FROM SU CH HOSPITALS AS BAD DEBTS, WHICH IS VERY CLEAR FROM OU R REJOINDER AND OUR EARLIER SUBMISSION. THE DEPARTMEN T HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT CASH RECEIPTS OUTSID E THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IF ANY, IN SPITE OF THIS, WE HEREBY MAKE A LUMP-SUM OFFER OF RS.6 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE AND, THUS, THE TOTAL OFFER IS AS UNDER:- AY OFFER NOW MADE ON ACCOUNT OF 3 HOSPITALS (AMOUNT IN RS.) 2010-11 NIL 2011-12 2,00,000/- 2012-13 2,00,000/- 2014-15 2,00,000/- TOTAL 6,00,000/- 14.3.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , THE ABOVE OFFER IS BEING MADE IN THE SPIRIT OF SETT LEMENT ARID TO AVOID ANY PROTRACTED PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPLICANT HAS COOPERATED WITH THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DURING THE COURSE OF VARIOUS HEARING AND IT IS VERY HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT THE SETTLEMENT BE MAD E BY INCLUDING THE ABOVE SAID ADDITIONAL OFFER AND OB LIGE' 14.3.3 SUMMING UP, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THIS ADDITIONAL OFFER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF (HE THREE HOSPITALS TO GIVE QUIETUS TO THE ISSUE IN THE SPIRIT OF SETTLEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID AMOUNT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME FOR SETTLEMENT.' ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 21 OF 27 11.2 HELD: I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EXAMINED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBS ERVATION MADE BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIO N. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT CO MMISSION, I FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE , THE ADDITION OF RS.1,29,255/- MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 9 IS ALLOWED. 31. BEFORE US LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO W HILE THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 32. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO GO NE THROUGH THE ORDER OF BOTH THE AO AND THE LD.CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEMONSTRATED FROM ITS BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS THAT ALL THE AMOUNTS NOTED IN THE DOCUMENT S STOOD RECORDED IN HER BOOKS. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFRONTED THE SAME TO THE AO WHO WAS UNABLE TO POINT ANY INFIRMITY. EVEN BEFORE US THE REVENUE HAS BEEN UNABLE BRING ANY MATERIAL B EFORE US TO CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE HOLD, THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) HOLDING NO ADDITION BEING CA LLED FOR ON THIS ACCOUNT. MOREOVER WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE I TSC ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE ANY CASH RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSE E OUTSIDE ITS BOOKS FROM KUC AND TO GIVE QUIETUS TO THE ISSUE HAD SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.6,00,000/- IN THREE YEARS, WHICH ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 22 OF 27 WAS ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY THE ITSC. 33. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS FROM KUC OF RS.1,29,255/- GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5& 5.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 34. GROUND NOS.6 AND 6.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELA TE TO ADDITION OF RS.6,43 563/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTE D RECEIPTS FROM MUKUT HOSPITAL MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS A-146 & A-23. 35. THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME FINDING MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT ALL RELEVANT AMOUNTS REC ORDED IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS STOOD ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE I TSC ON THE ISSUE IN THE PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEARS. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 12.1TO 12.2 OF TH E ORDER ARE AS UNDER: 12.1 PER CONTRA: IN HER REPLY ON 11.01.2016, THE APPELLANT HAS STATES AS UNDER:- 25. GROUND NO. 10 'THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ALSO ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS 6,43.563/- ON ACCOUNT OF 'MUKAT HOSP ITAL' AS PER ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 23 OF 27 PARA 17.2 OF HIS ORDER.' I. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS . 6,43,563/~ AND IN THIS RESPECT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WE ARE SU BMITTING HEREWITH A CHART FROM WHERE IF IS PROVED THAT THE F IRST THREE FIGURES ARE NOT RELATABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION AND ALL THE OTHER FIGURES ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE MADE.' 12.1.1. IN THE TABLE FILED WITH THE REPLY, THE APP ELLANT HAS MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- ANNEXURE A. 14 & 2 3 (MUKUT HOSPITAL) MONTH AMOUNT AS PER AO AMOUNT AMOUNT RELEVANT TO AS PER AY 2013-14 BOOKS DIFF. REMARKS-AS PER ACCOUNT BOOKS DEC 2011- DEC 2012 551450 413588 THIS FIGURE IS A CONSOLIDATED FIGURE FOR 9 MONTHS. HOWEVER SEPARATE FIGURES FOR EACH MONTH ARE AVAILABLE IN A- 23 AND AS SUCH. THIS CONSOLIDATED FIGURE HAS GOT NO RELEVANCE AND CANNOT BE SEPARATELY ADDED. JAN 2013 DEC 2013 732700 183175 THIS FIGURE IS A CONSOLIDATED FIGURE FOR 3 MONTHS. HOWEVER SEPARATE FIGURES FOR EACH MONTH ARE AVAILABLE IN A- 23 AND AS SUCH, THIS CONSOLIDATED FIGURE HAS GOT NO RELEVANCE AND CANNOT BE SEPARATELY ADDED. , _ _ _ _ TOTAL 596763 ACCORDING TO LD. AO EVEN IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED AS PER CONSOLIDATED FIGURES SHOULD BE 596763/- WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CREDITED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A SUM OF RS 580550/-. THE MINOR DIFFERENCE CAN BE ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BY MUKATA HOSPITAL. THE DIFFERENCE CAN DE DUE TO HYPOTHETICAL WORKING OF AMOUNT RELATABLE TO A. Y. 2013-14. HOWEVER SEPARATE FIGURES FOR EACH MONTH ARE AVAILABLE IN A- 23 AND AS SUCH : THIS CONSOLIDATED FIGURE HAS GOT NO RELEVANCE AND CANNOT BE SEPARATELY ADDED. 12.1.2. IN REPLY FILED ON 19.07.2017, THE APPELLA NT HAS MADE NO FRESH ARGUMENTS. 12.1.3. THE OBSERVATIONS OF HON'BLE INCO ME COMMISSION HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 14.3. '14.3 COMMISSION'S DECISION:-AS CAN BE SEEN, THE AC COUNTS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPLICANT DO NOT COVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD O F THE PREVIOUS YEARS. IN BOTH THE MATTER, THERE ARE GAPS OF ONE TO THREE MONTHS IN THE ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 24 OF 27 3 ASSESSMENT PERIOD. THE APPLICANT TOOK THE PLEA TH AT FOR THIS PERIOD THERE ARE NO RECORDS NOR DID THE DEPARTMENT DETECT ANY MATERIALS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE, THE DEPARTMENT USED THE AVAILABLE DATA TO EXTRAPOLATE THEM TO DETERMINE INCOME FOR THE REMAIN ING PERIOD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, THE EXTRAPOLATION EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPAR TMENT APPEARS TO BE ON THE RIGHT LINE. IN THE MEANTIME, THE APPLICAN T VIDE LETTER DATED 7 TH DECEMBER, 2016 SUBMISSION IN THE SPIRIT OF COOPERA TION. THE LETTER CAN BE QUOTED VERBATIM: 'WE HAVE ALREADY SUB MITTED IN THE SOF AND AGAIN IN OUR REJOINDER THAT THERE ARE NO CA SH RECEIPTS FROM THESE HOSPITALS AND ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE BY CH EQUES AND RATHER ON ACCOUNT OF NON-RECOVERING OF AMOUNT, WE H AVE TO WRIGHT OFF THE AMOUNT DUE FROM SUCH HOSPITALS AS BAD DEBTS, WHICH IS VERY CLEAR FROM OUR REJOINDER AND OUR EARLIER SUBMISSION THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT CASH RECE IPTS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IF ANY, IN SPITE OF THIS, WE HEREBY MAKE A LUMP-SUM OFFER OF RS. 6 LAKH ON ACCOU NT OF THE ABOVE AND, THUS, THE TOTAL OFFER IS AS UNDER: AY OFFER NOW MADE ON ACCOUNT OF 3 HOSPITALS 2010-11 NIL 2011-12 2,00,000 2012-13 2,00,000 2014-15 6,00,000 14.3.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES, THE ABOVE OFFER IS BEING MADE IN THE SPIRIT OF SETTLEME NT AND TO AVOID ANY PROTRACTED PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPLICANT HAS CO OPERATED WITH THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DURING THE COURSE OF VARIOUS HEARING AND IT IS VERY HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT THE SE TTLEMENT BE MADE BY INCLUDING THE ABOVE SAID ADDITIONAL OFFER A ND OBLIGE. '' 12.2. HELD: I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EXAMINED THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION MADE BY THE HON'B'E INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. IN VI EW OF ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BIE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, THE ADDITION OF RS.6,43,563/-MADE BY THE AC .S DELETED GROUND OF APPEAL NO.10 IS ALLOWED. 36. THE LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO WHILE T HE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 25 OF 27 LD.CIT(A). 37. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO GO NE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD.CIT(A ). THE LD.CIT(A), WE HAVE NOTED, DELETED THE ADDITION AFTE R EXAMINING AND FINDING MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES CONT ENTION THAT ALL AMOUNTS REFLECTED IN THE DOCUMENTS STOOD A CCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO NOTED THA T THE ITSC HAD ACCEPTED ASSESSEES LUMPSUM SURRENDER ON THIS A CCOUNT OF RS.6LACS MADE IN THREE YEARS TO BUY QUIETUS TO T HE ISSUE ON BEING POINTED OUT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN U NABLE TO POINT OUT CASH RECEIPTS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS ON THI S ACCOUNT IN THE YEARS BEFORE THE ITSC. THE REVENUE HAS BROUG HT NOTHING BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL AMOUNTS RECORDED IN THE DOCUMENT S STOOD DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. 38. IN VIEW OF THE SAME AND CONSIDERING THE ORDER O F THE ITSC ON SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDI NG EARS WHEREIN ALSO THE DEPARTMENT WAS UNABLE TO POINT OUT ANY CASH RECEIPTS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS ON THIS ACCOUNT, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) D ELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED REC EIPTS FROM MUKUT HOSPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS.6,43,563/- ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 26 OF 27 GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 & 6.1 OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 39. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 4 TH OCTOBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- ' # $ %! (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER &' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER )' /DATED: 4 TH OCTOBER, 2021 * ! * &) *+,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO.148/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2 013-14 PAGE 27 OF 27