Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (1), Indore, Indore V. M/s DTHRI Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (M.P), Indore

ITA 604/Ind/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8429 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MOURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT NEEMA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Document seized; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 133A; 147; 68; 69; 148

Judgement Text

DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.604/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 REVENUE BY S HRI R.P. MOURYA , SR.DR ASSESSEE BY S/ SHRI SUMIT NEEMA, SR.ADV & GAGAN TIWARI, ADV DAT E OF HEARING 1 7 . 12. 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02.01.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL IS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF REVENUE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- I (IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)], INDORE DATED 20.06.2017 WHICH IS ARIS ING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 30.12.2016 FRAMED BY ACIT-2(1), INDORE. DC IT - 2(1), INDORE VS. M/S. DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD (M.P), PU-4, SCHEME NO.54, NEAR A.B. ROAD, INDORE ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO. AABCD 4095N DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 2 2. REVENUE HAD RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL; 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2, 30,53,039/- BY IGNORING THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF SHRI SUNIL JAIN DATED 16. 06.2012 AND ISSUES WHICH ARE DISCUSSED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER OF A.Y. 201 3-14 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,70,923 /- FOR DISALLOWANCE OF SET OFF OF ABOVE EXPENSES IN VIEW OF SECTION 115BBE OF ACT AND IGNORING THE FINDINGS IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THAQT THE APPELLANT CRAVES RIGHT TO ADD, DELETE AND ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2013- 14 ON 21.9.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,91,6 4,270/-. A SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 15.06.2012 IN THE PREMISES OF BCM HEALTH ISLAND AND M/S. TOTALL D IABETES HORMONE INSTITUTE OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING SURVEY SHRI SUNIL JAIN, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOM E OF RS.4,41,88,232/- IN HANDS OF M/S. DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT.LTD FOR A.Y. 2013-14 ON ACCOUNT OF OUT OF BOOKS INCOME FROM HEALTH CAMP RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES. PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WERE DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 3 INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DAT ED 15.2.2016 DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECORDING REASON OF SATISFACTION FOR REOPENING THE CASE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147/148. DURING THE COURSE OF R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT LD . A.O) OBSERVED THAT AS AGAINST THE ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.4,41,88,232/- THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY DECLARED INC OME OF RS.2,11,29,807/- AND THE REASONS FOR LESS DISCLOSUR E WAS SOUGHT FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS AN ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN ADM ITTING THE INCOME AGAINST THE PARTICULAR SHEET ON THE BASIS OF WHICH UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS ADMITTED. THERE WERE THREE FIGURES OF W HICH ONE WAS THE INCOME FROM THE HEALTH CAMP OF RS.3,20,00,730/- AND THE REMAINING TWO FIGURES AT RS. 65,19,150/- AND RS.50, 68,352/- APPEARING IN THE LOOSE PAPER NO. B-1-13 WERE RELATE D TO THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN ORGANIZING THE HEALTH CAMP. I NADVERTENTLY DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, WHILE ADMITTING UNDISC LOSED INCOME THE TWO FIGURES REPRESENTING EXPENDITURE WERE ADDED TO THE GROSS RECEIPT FROM HEALTH CAMP WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED FROM THE GROSS RECEIPT. THE ACTUAL INCOME FROM THE UNDI SCLOSED HEALTH DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 4 CAMP WAS ONLY AT RS.2,11,29,807/- BUT ASSESSEE WRON GLY ADMITTED IT AT RS.4,41,882,232/-. LD.A.O HOWEVER WAS NOT CO NVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE GAVE ONLY TH E BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION FOR WEB-SITE ADVERTISEMENT AT RS.53,086/- AND MADE ADDITION FOR THE REMAINING INCOME ADMITTED DURING T HE SURVEY AS AGAINST INCOME DECLARED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN AT RS.2,30,53,039/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. LD .A.O ALSO DID NOT ALLOW THE SET OFF OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS.19, 17,923/- AGAINST THE INCOME DISCLOSED ON ACCOUNT OF SURVEY PROCEEDIN GS OBSERVING THAT SUCH SET OFF IS NOT ALLOWED U/S 115BBE. INCOM E ASSESSED AT RS.4,41,88,232/-. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A) AND SUCCEEDED. 5. NOW AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. 6. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP GROUND NO.1. 7. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPO RTED THE ORDERS OF LD.A.O. 8. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTE D THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 5 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THROUGH THIS GROUND REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 ,30,53,039/- ALLEGING THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SUNIL JAIN RECORDED ON 16.06.2012 ADMITTING THE UNDISCLOSED IN COME AT RS.4,41,88,232/-. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.2,30,53,039/- OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS; 5. GROUND NOS.3 TO 6:- THESE GROUNDS OF THE APPELLA NT ARE BEING TAKEN UP FIRST AS THESE GO TO THE ROOT OF THE DISPUTE, AL L THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF THE APPELLANT ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS, 23053039/- THE DETAILED FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER THE ASSESSMENT OR DER ARE REPRODUCED AT PARA NO,2 ABOVE AND THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE REPRODUCED AT PARA NO.3 ABOVE. 5.1 BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A CTION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLAN T ON 15/06/2012. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS WE RE FOUND WHICH WERE IDENTIFIED AS 81-13. AS PER THE ABOVE PAPERS PAGE N OS, 5 TO 8 CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF RECEIPTS FROM ORGANIZING OF HEALTH C AMP FOR THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO A,Y. 2013-14 AND THESE RECEIPTS WERE NO T RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, PAGE NOS. 9 TO 25 A ND PAGE NOS, 26 TO 29 CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED WHICH ALSO WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. DURING THE COURS E OF SURVEY A STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR DR. SUNIL JAIN WAS RECORD ED WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO AT PAGE NOS. 2 TO 6 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND HAS ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA NO, 2 PAGE NOS, 3 TO 5 ABOVE, ON DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 6 PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE DIREC TOR DR. SUNIL JAIN ADMITTED THAT PAGE NOS, 5 TO 8 OF B1-L3 CONTAINED T HE DETAILS OF RECEIPTS FROM THE HEALTH CHECK-UP CAMPS ORGANIZED BY THE APP ELLANT WHICH TOTAL TO RS.32600730/- AND THESE RECEIPTS WERE NOT RECORD ED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WERE ACCEPTED AS REPRESENTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, SIMILARLY, IT WAS STATED BY DR. S UNIL JAIN THAT PAGE NOS, 9 TO 25 OF B1-L3 CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES OF RS.6519150/- WHICH WERE ALSO NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE PAGE NOS, 26 TO 29 ALSO CONTAINED DETAILS OF EXPENSES OF RS. 5068352/WHICH ALSO REMAINED TO BE RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE COM PANY. DR. SUNIL JAIN DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING OF STATEMENT FURTHER STATED THAT THE HEALTH CHECK-UP CAMPS WERE STARTED BY THE COMPANY I N THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY AND THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES WE RE NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HENCE IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE NOTED DISCREPANCIES, IT WAS FURTHER ADMITTED THAT THE UND ISCLOSED INCOME OVER AND ABOVE THE REGULAR INCOME FOR THE YEAR WAS RS.44 188232/- AND DUE TAXES ON THE SAME WILL BE PAID. 5.2 HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN ONLY INCOME OF RS. 21129807/-. AO THEREFORE NOTED THAT THE INCOME SHOWN WAS RS.230 58425/- LESS THAN THE INCOME ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OF RS.44188232/-, APPELLANT WAS ALSO ASKED CLARIFY THE REASON FOR DIF FERENCE. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT RECEIPTS .ON ACCOUNT OF HEALTH CAMPS ORGANIZED WAS RS.32000730/- AGAINST WHICH EXPENSES INCURRED IN OR GANIZING THE HEALTH CAMP WERE RS.6319150/- AND EXPENSES ON MATERIAL USE D FOR ORGANIZING THE HEALTH CAMP WAS RS.5068352/- AND THUS THE TOTAL OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES WAS RS..44188232/-. DURING THE COURSE OF S URVEY WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT, ADDITIONAL INCOME ON THE B ASIS OF HEALTH CAMP RECEIPT AND EXPENSES AS INCURRED ON ORGANIZING THE CAMPS WERE BOTH DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 7 INADVERTENTLY ADDED AND ACCORDINGLY TOTAL AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS ADMITTED AS UNDER:- S.NO. NATU R E OF INCOME AMOUNT (RS.) 1 INCOME ON THE BASIS OF HEALTH CAMP RECEIPT 3200730 2 INCOME O N ACCOUNT OF HEALTH CAMP EXPENSES 11587502 TOTAL 44188232 5.3 THUS AT THE TIME OF SURVEY INSTEAD OF REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN ORGANIZING THE HEALTH CAMP, TH E AMOUNT OF EXPENSES WERE WRONGLY ADDED TO THE HEALTH CAMP RECE IPT WHICH RESULTED IN DOUBLE ADDITION OF RS.11587502/ -. THE CORRECT A MOUNT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE T IME OF SURVEY IS RS. 21129807/-, CALCULATED AS UNDER:- S.NO. PARTICULAR AMOUNT (RS.) 1 HEALTH CAMP RECEIPT 32600730 LESS EXPENSE S AS ACTUALLY INCURRED IN CONDUCTING THE HEALTH CAMP 11470923 NET AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME 21129807 THEREFORE, THE NET INCOME AS EARNED IN ORGANIZING T HE HEALTH CAMP WAS OF RS.2112980/- ONLY AND NOT OF RS.44188232/- AS CO NSIDERED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. 5.4 APPELLANT ALSO POINTED OUT THAT A LETTER DATED 12/03/2013 WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO AND COPY OF THE SAME WAS ALSO F ORWARDED TO THE OFFICE OF THE JCIT AND CIT WHEREIN THE ABOVE FACTS WERE ST ATED AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ACCORDINGLY FILED TAKING THE CORRECT INCOME AS DEDUCED DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 8 FROM THE PAPERS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ERROR WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE DIREC TOR SHRI SUNIL JAIN WAS A DOCTOR BY PROFESSION AND WAS NOT CONVERSANT WITH THE TECHNICAL IMPLICATION OF INCOME AND ACCEPTED THE ENTIRE AMOUN T NOTED IN THE PAPERS AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS THESE WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 5.5 AO HOWEVER, REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE APP ELLANT BY OBSERVING THAT SHRI SUNIL JAIN WAS EDUCATED ENOUGH TO UNDERST AND THAT IF THE EXPENSES ARE RELATED TO THE SAME RECEIPTS THESE ARE TO BE DEDUCTED IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX AND ,HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY MISTAKE / ERROR IN ADMITTING THE UNDI SCLOSED INCOME. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE AO THAT THE STATEMENT W AS GIVEN UNDER OATH AND HAD EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND THE LETTER CLARIFYING THE MISTAKE DATED 12/03/2013 WAS FILED AFTER 8 MONTHS AND WAS THEREFO RE ONLY AN AFTER THOUGHT AS IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCES. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED BY THE AO THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE E XPENSES WERE UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES AND HENCE WERE DEEMED TO BE IN COME U/S 69C OF THE ACT AND ALSO WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. AO ALSO POINTED OUT T HAT NO NEXUS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT BETWEEN THE INCOM E AND THE EXPENSES AND NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WERE FILED THAT THE EXP ENDITURE WAS INCURRED AS HEALTH CAMP EXPENSES. AO ALSO DOUBTED N OT ONLY THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED, IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THAT SUCH EXPENSES WERE ACTUALLY INCURRED AT THE TIME OF ORGANIZING THE HEALTH CAMPS, BUT ALSO DOUBTED THE F ACT OF HOLDING OF THE HEALTH CHECK-UP CAMPS BY OBSERVING THAT NO EVIDENCE S WERE FILED TO SHOW THAT PERMISSION ETC WERE TAKEN FOR HOLDING SUC H LARGE CAMPS. AO THEREFORE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF EXPENS ES AND TREATED THE ENTIRE RECEIPT AND EXPENSES AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCO ME OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APP ELLANT HAS REITERATED DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 9 WHAT WAS STATED BEFORE THE AO AND HAS RELIED EXTENS IVELY ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENTS. 5.6 FROM THE ABOVE IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT THE ADDI TION IS THE RESULT OF ACTION U/S 133A OF THE ACT AND THE BASIS FOR THE AD DITION IS THE MATERIAL FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WHICH HAS BEEN IDENTIFI ED AS B1-13 PAGE NOS. 5 TO 8, PAGE NOS. 9 TO 25 & PAGE 26 TO 29. THE ENTI RE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THESE PAPERS AND THERE IS NO O THER INDEPENDENT INFORMATION OR ENQUIRY TO SUPPORT OR DISPROVE THE C ONTENTS OF THE PAPERS FOUND EXCEPT FOR THE STATEMENT OF DR. SUNIL JAIN DI RECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. SCRUTINY OF THE PAPERS S HOW THAT ON THE O NE HAND THE PAPERS RECORD THE RECEIPTS WHICH ARE NOT ACCOUNTED AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE PAPERS RECORD THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE RECEIPTS AS RECORDED IN THE PAPERS FOUND THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIP TS ARE SHOWN TO BE FROM HOLDING OF HEALTH CHECK-UP CAMPS AND THE UNACC OUNTED EXPENDITURE IS SHOWN TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF HOLDING OF SUCH CAMPS. THE ABOVE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED. APPELLANT HAS THEREFO RE ARGUED THAT SINCE THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES ARE BOTH NOTED IN THE PAP ERS FOUND ONLY THE NET INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS THE UNDISCLOSE D INCOME AND THE STATEMENT GIVEN AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS THUS ERRO NEOUS AS IT DID NOT TAKE IN TO CONSIDERATION THIS ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE AS DR. SUNIL JAIN WHO WAS A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WAS UNAWARE OF SUCH TECH NICALITY. 5.7 AO HAS HOWEVER REJECTED THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS B Y OBSERVING THAT DR. SUNIL JAIN WAS SUFFICIENTLY EDUCATED AND HENCE SUCH MISTAKE WAS NOT AN ERROR ON HIS PART AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.44188232/ - ADMITTED BY HIM AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS THE CORRECT FIGURE OF IN COME WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE EXPL ANATION WAS MERELY A RUSE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT ADMITTED AS IT WAS TENDER ED AFTER 7-8 MONTHS OF THE SURVEY. AO HELD THAT THE STATEMENT WAS RECOR DED ON OATH AND WAS THUS BINDING AND HAD EVIDENTIARY VALUE. AO ALSO NOT ED THAT NO NEXUS DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 10 WAS ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE INCOME AND THE EXPENSES ADMITTED AS NOTED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS AND THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT EXPENSES WERE RELATABLE TO THE INCOME. AO ALSO DOUBTED THE VERY FACT OF HOLDING OF HEALTH CAMPS AND INCURRING OF EXPENSE S FOR SUCH CAMPS. 5.8 AS HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED ABOVE THE ENTIRE CAS E REVOLVES AROUND THE PAPERS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND THE STATEMEN T OF DR. SUNIL JAIN. THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UP ON. THE PAPERS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS WERE FRO M HOLDING OF HEALTH CHECK-UP CAMPS AND THE EXPENDITURE WAS ON ORGANIZIN G THESE CAMPS WHICH INCLUDED REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, T.A./D.A. AND PAYMENT OF SALARY/FEE' TO FIELD STAFF/DOCTORS, MEDICINES PROVI DED TO PATIENTS, TENT AND LOCAL PUBLICITY EXPENSES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOU S EXPENSES. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT THE DOCUMENTS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN ENTIRETY AND NOT CHOOSING ONLY THE PARTS WHICH WERE BENEFICIAL TO THE REVENUE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CHANDER MOHAN MEHTA VS. ACIT 71 ITD 245 (PUNE), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE LOOSE PAPERS ARE TO BE ACCEPTED IN TOTO. OTHERWISE ALSO THE INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED AND NOT THE GROSS R ECEIPTS. WHEN SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE IT CANNOT BE INFERRED FROM T HE PAPERS FOUND THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT WERE RS.4418823 2/- THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER THE PAPERS ARE ONLY RS.32600730/-. NO DOUBT THAT IN THE STATEMENT IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCO ME WAS RS.44188232/- HOWEVER, SUCH STATEMENT WAS LATER MOD IFIED POINTING OUT THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS WERE ONLY RS,32600730/- AND NOT RS.44188232/- . THE DIFFERENCE (44188232 - 32600730 = 11587502) I .E RS.11587502/- REPRESENTED EXPENSES OUT OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. NO DOUBT BOTH WERE UNACCOUNTED AND HENCE THE STATEMENT OF DR. SUNIL JA IN THAT THESE REPRESENTED UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THE STATEMENT HAS E VIDENTIARY VALUE NO DOUBT AND IT IS AN ESTABLISHED LEGAL PRINCIPLE T HAT AN ADMISSION IS THE BEST EVIDENCE THAT AN OPPOSING PARTY CAN RELY UPON AND THOUGH NOT DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 11 CONCLUSIVE, IS DECISIVE OF THE MATTER UNLESS SUCCES SFULLY WITHDRAWN OR PROVED ERRONEOUS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT STATEMENT WAS BINDING HOWEVER, IT IS TO BE NOT ED THAT THE STATEMENT MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS MODIFIED BY WA Y OF LETTER FILED BY THE APPELLANT EXPLAINING THE MISTAKE MADE AT THE TI ME OF RECORDING OF STATEMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PAPERS FOUND AT THE T IME OF SURVEY. THE STATEMENT WAS THEREFORE TO BE READ WITH THE PAPERS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND WHICH IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AS PER THE PAPERS FOUND WERE ONL Y RS.32600730/- AND NOT RS.44188232/-. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THIS F ACT AND THERE ARE NO OTHER INDEPENDENT EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT GROSS RECE IPTS WERE MORE THAN OR LESS THAN RS. 32600730/- OR TO SHOW THAT EXPENSE S WERE NOT INCURRED FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE 82 ITR 540 (SC) HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 'IN A CASE WHERE PARTY RELIED ON SELF-SERVING RECIT ALS IN DOCUMENTS IT WAS FOR THE PARTY TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THES E RECITALS. - THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK: INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND FIND OUT THE REALITY OF SUCH RECI TALS. ' THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHEN SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE STATEMENT OF DR. SUNIL JA IN GIVEN AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS MODIFIED BY WAY OF LETTER AND INSTEAD OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.44188232/- DECLARED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME RS.21129807/- WAS STATED TO BE THE UNDISCLOSED INCO ME. THE REASON FOR THIS MODIFICATION WAS STATED TO. BE ON ACCOUNT OF. NON APPRECIATION OF THE TECHNICALITIES OF ACCOUNTING AND TAXATION PRINCIPLE S AT THE TIME OF MAKING OF STATEMENT BY DR. SUNIL JAIN WHO BEING A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WAS UNAWARE OF THESE PRINCIPLES. AO HAS REJECTED THE CO NTENTION WITHOUT TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE CASE RESTS ON THE PAPERS FOUND AND THE PAPERS SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE GROSS DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 12 UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS WERE RS.32600730/- AND NOT RS. 44188232/-. NO OTHER SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OR MATERIAL IS BROU GHT ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AS TO THE ACTUAL QUANTUM OF THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P. D. ABRAHAM 349 ITR 442 (KER.) HAS GIVEN THE FINDING AS UNDER:- 'WHEN THE DEPARTMENT RELIES ON THE SEIZED RECORD FO R ESTIMATING UNDISCLOSED INCOME THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE EXPEN DITURE STATED THEREIN SHOULD BE DISBELIEVED MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND THAT PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE THROUGH C HEQUES OR DEMAND DRAFTS. THIS ALSO LEADS TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE UNDISCLOS ED INCOME HAS TO BE ARRIVED AT BY CONSIDERING THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN T OTO AND THERE CAN BE NO PICK AND CHOOSE IN THE MATTER. IT IS ALSO RELEVA NT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF MANMOHAN SADANI VS. CIT 304 ITR 0052 & THAT OF CIT VS. BALCH AND AJIT KUMAR 263 ITR 610 WHEREIN THE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE TOTAL S ALE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS THE PROFIT AND THE SALE PROCEEDS CANNOT BE ADDED AS INCOME. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN H OLDING THAT THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS WERE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 5.9 AO HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS UNDISC LOSED AND UNEXPLAINED AND HENCE IS DEEMED TO BE INCOME U/S 69 C OF THE ACT. A REFERENCE TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69C OF THE AC T IS THEREFORE USEFUL WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 'WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR AN ASSESSEE HAS INCURR ED ANY EXPENDITURE AND HE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE OR PART THEREOF, OR THE EXPLANATION, IF ANY, OFFERED BY HIM. IS NOT, IN 'THE OPINION OF THE AO, SATISFACTOR Y, THE AMOUNT COVERED BY SUCH EXPENDITURE OR PART. THEREOF, AS TH E CASE MAY BE, DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 13 MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE L71COME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. PROVIDED THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED I N ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, SUCH UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE WHICH IS DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT B E ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME. FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT IS SEEN THAT BOTH THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT THESE ARE RECORDED IN THE PAPERS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE EXPENSES HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AS BEING FROM THE RECEIPTS RECORDED IN THE PAPERS FOUN D AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. IT THEREFORE CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPELL ANT HAS FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE EXPENSE S. AO HAS REJECTED THE ABOVE EXPLANATION THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES AND THAT THERE WA S NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM. THAT THE EXPENSES WE RE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING HEALTH CHECK UP CAMPS AND HAS EV EN DOUBTED THE FACT OF HOLDING THE CAMPS. THE OBJECTIONS THE AO ARE THU S IN THE REALM OF PRESUMPTIONS AND CONJECTURES, IT IS TO BE NOTED THA T IF THIS VIEW IS SUBSCRIBED TO THEN THERE IS NO BASIS TO EVEN HOLD T HAT THE APPELLANT HAD ANY INCOME, IF THERE WERE NO HEALTH CHECK UP CAMPS THERE WAS NO INCOME AS NO OTHER EVIDENCE IS ON RECORD OTHER THAN THE PA PERS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WHICH CATEGORICALLY RECORD THE RECEIPTS B EING FROM HOLDING OF HEALTH CHECK UP CAMPS AND SIDE BY SIDE THE EXPENSES ON THE CHECK UP CAMPS SO ORGANIZED WHICH HAS BEEN DULY ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT OF DR. JAIN, CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE C ONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE JUDICIAL POSITION AS BROUGHT OUT IN THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS CITED IT CANNOT BE UPHELD THAT THE EXPEND ITURE RECORDED IN THE PAPERS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS UNEXPLAINED AS TO THE SOURCE OF DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 14 SUCH EXPENDITURE AND WAS COVERED 'WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 5.10 AO HAS ALSO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF 115BBE O F THE ACT IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR SET-OFF OF EXPENSES AGAINST THE GROSS RECEIPTS, A REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- '(1) WHETHER THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUD ES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 68, SECTION 69, SECTION 69A, SECTION 69B, SECTION 69C OR SECTION 69D, THE INCOME-TAX PAYABLE SHALL BE THE AGGREGATE OF- (A) THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX CALCULATED ON INCOME R EFERRED TO IN SECTION 68, SECTION 69, SECTION 69A, SECTION 69B, S ECTION 69C OR SECTION 69D, AT THE RATE OF THIRTY PERCENT; AND (B) THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX WITH WHICH THE ASSESSE E WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD HIS TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED B Y THE AMOUNT OF INCOME REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A), (2) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT, NO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPENDITURE OR ALLOWANCE SHALL BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT IN COMPUTI NG HIS INCOME REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (1). FROM THE ABOVE IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT PROVISIONS O F SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED ONLY IF ANY ADDITIONS ARE MAD E TO THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTIONS 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D OF THE A CT. FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WHICH ARE ALR EADY DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE IMPUGNED INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN PAPERS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND THE EXPENSES NOTED IN THE PAPERS HAVE BEEN ADDED AS DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 15 INCOME AND BOTH THE RECEIPTS AND THE INCOME ARE ADM ITTED TO BE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AS HAS ALREADY B EEN HELD ABOVE GROSS RECEIPTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME AND THE INC OME HAS TO BE ARRIVED AT BY CONSIDERING THE DETAILS RECORDED IN T HE PAPERS FOUND IN TOTO, THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES RECORDED IN THE PAPERS ARE TO BE FIRST DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME, TH E DEEMING PROVISIONS OF THE VARIOUS SECTIONS CITED ABOVE ARE THEREFORE NOT ATTRACTED, IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACT OF THE CASE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE PROV ISION OF SECTION 11SBBE OF THE ACT ARE ALSO NOT ATTRACTED IN THE CASE, THE AO WAS THEREFORE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF SET-OFF OF EX PENSES U/S 115BBE OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 23053039/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THESE GROUNDS OF THE APP ELLANT ARE THEREFORE ALLOWED. - RS.23053039/ - DELETED 10. THE ABOVE DETAILED FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) HAS NO T BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE . THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE SQUARELY REVEALS THAT DURING THE CO URSE OF SURVEY LOOSE PAPER FORMING PART OF B-1-13 REFERRED TO CERT AIN DETAILS OF HEALTH CAMP INCOME AND EXPENDITURE. ADMITTEDLY THE RE WERE THREE FIGURES HAVING FOLLOWING PARTICULARS; 1. INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF HEALTH CAMP RS.3,26,00,730 2. EXPENSES INCURRED IN ORGANIZING THE HEALTH CAMP RS. 65,19,150 DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 16 3. EXPENSES/MATERIAL USED FOR ORGANIZING THE HEALTH CAMP RS. 50,68,352 11. ON THE BASIS OF THESE DOCUMENTS INCOME WORKS OU T TO RS.2,10,13,228/- (GROSS RECEIPT RS.3,26,00,730/- LE SS EXPENSES RS.65,19,150/- LESS EXPENSES RS.50,68,352/-), BUT I NADVERTENTLY DIRECTOR SHRI SUNIL JAIN DURING THE COURSE OF SURVE Y WHILE ADMITTING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME TOTALED THE THREE FIGURES CO MPRISING OFINCOME AND EXPENSES AND SURRENDERED INCOME AT RS.4,41,88,232/- WHICH IN OUR VIEW WAS A BONAFIDE M ISTAKE AS THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF IMPUGNED LOOSE PAPER WAS DES IRED TO BE SURRENDERED. WE THEREFORE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,30,53,039/ - BY ALLOWING GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE NEEDS NO INTER FERENCE AS THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN SUBJECT ED TO TAX. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. CIT(A) AN D DISMISS REVENUES GROUND NO.1. 12. NOW WE TAKE UP GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE. 13. . LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY S UPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LD.A.O. DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 17 14. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORT ED THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). 15. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE FIN DING OF LD. CIT(A) ALLEGING THE SET OFF OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.19,70,923 /- AGAINST THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF SU RVEY. WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED BY LD.CI T(A) OF CLAIM OF SET OFF OF THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.19,70,923/- OBSERV ING AS FOLLOWS; 6. GROUND NOS.7 & 8:- BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF SET-OFF OF LOSS OF THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION OF RS.1970923/ - AGAINST THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME ADMITT ED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.21135193 / -. THE DETAILED FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AT PARA NO.2 ABOVE AND THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE REPRODUCED AT PARA NO.3 ABOVE. 6.1 AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS DI SALLOWED THE CLAIM OF SET-OFF BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 'SUCH SET-OFF CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS THE INCOME OFFER ED DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IS TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED S OURCES U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND DEEMED INCOME U/S 69C OF THE ACT THROUGH WH ICH UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN MADE. THEREFORE EVEN SETOFF TH ESE EXPENSES AGAINST THE OFFERED INCOME CANNOT BE ALLOWED U/S 115BBE. HE NCE AN ADDITION OF RS.19, 70,923/ - IS ALSO BEING MADE TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF ASSESSEE.' DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 18 6.2 A DETAILED DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE IN PARA NO. 5.1 TO PARA NO. 5.10 ABOVE WHILE DISCUSSING THE ADD ITION OF RS 23053039/- IT IS WORTHWHILE TO REITERATE THAT THE A DDITION WAS BASED ON PAPERS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY GIVING DETAILS O F RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES. BOTH THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES WERE NOT R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THERE WAS THEREFORE NO CREDIT IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED THAT THE NET OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES REPRESENTED HIS INCOME WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HAS SHOWN THE SAME IN THE RETURN FILED. THE CREDIT THER EFORE STANDS EXPLAINED AS TO THE SOURCE; THE SOURCE BEING THE RECEIPTS FRO M HEALTH CHECK-UP CAMPS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT THER EFORE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACT OF THE CASE. FURTHER, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AND TREATING THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS INCOME WAS ALSO NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF TH E ACT CONSIDERING THE EXTANT LEGAL POSITION AND THEREFORE INVOKING OF PRO VISION OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT WAS ALSO NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE APPEL LANT WAS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 115BBBE OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF SET-OFF OF LOSS OF RS.1970923/- WAS NO T JUSTIFIED BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 69C AND SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. THE INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IS ON ACCO UNT OF ORGANIZING HEALTH CHECK-UP CAMPS. THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.197092 3/WHICH IS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS CONSISTING OF SALARY PAID TO THE STAFF INCLUDING MAJOR PAYMENT AS SALARY TO DIRECTOR DR. S UNIL JAIN WHICH HAS BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF DR. SUNIL JAIN WHO IS ALSO SUBJECT TO TAX AT THE MAXIMUM RATE. FURTHER, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT DURING THE' YEAR THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY OTH ER ACTIVITY EXCEPT ORGANISING HEALTH CHECK-UP CAMPS IN WHICH PROFESSIO NAL SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY DR. SUNIL JAIN FOR WHICH SERVICES HE WA S PAID THE ABOVE SALARY. THE EXPENDITURE WAS THUS DIRECTLY RELATED T O THE INCOME ADMITTED FROM HEALTH CHECK-UP CAMPS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE TH E CLAIM OF SET-OFF OF DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 19 SUCH EXPENSES IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. BOTH THESE GROU NDS ARE THEREFORE ALLOWED. 16. THE ABOVE FINDING OF FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVE RTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ALLEGED EXPENDITURE OF RS.19,70,923/- HAVE BEEN THO ROUGHLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES AND THE IMPUGNED ACCOUNT MAINLY INCLUDES SALARY PAID TO SHR I SUNIL JAIN AND OTHERS AT RS.17,97,199/- WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY O FFERED TO TAX BY SHRI SUNIL JAIN AND OTHERS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE R ETURN OF INCOME TAX. IT IS ALSO DISCERNABLE FROM THE RECORDS THAT T HE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE OF RS.19,70,923/- HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AGA INST THE INCOME FROM ORGANIZING HEALTH CAMP WHICH IS ALSO TH E PART OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE THER EFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF LD.CIT(A) AND THE SAME NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. DTHRI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD ITA NO.260/IND/2017 20 17. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.01.201 9. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 2 ND JANUARY, 2019 /DEV COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE