M/s Alfa Radiological Centre Pvt. Ltd., Patiala V. ITO, Patiala

ITA 62/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1495 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MODIT SRIVASTAVA SR DR
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 133A; 143(1)

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CHES, SMC CHANDIGARH .., ! BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.62/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S ALFA RADIO LOGICAL CENTRE PVT. LTD. #1, JAGDISH ASHRAM ROAD PATIALA, PUNJAB THE ITO WARD-4 PATIALA, PUNJAB PAN NO:AADCA7768D APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI MODIT SRIVASTAVA, SR. DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 12/06/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/06/2019 '#/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT.22/11/2018 OF LD. CIT(A), PATIALA. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE BOOK RESULT AND SUSTAINING THE PART ADDITION AND WHILE ESTIMATING THE SUPPRESSED R ECEIPTS @ 30% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AS DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AGA INST THE SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS AS ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER @ 50%. 2. THAT THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 21,88,689/- AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 36,47,815/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT PROPER. 3. THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST THE FACTS A ND LAW WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED PROPERLY THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE EMPLOYEE, SH. KAPIL KUMAR, WHOSE STATEMENT W AS RECORDED, DURING SURVEY OPERATIONS AND WHICH HAD BEEN MADE THE SOLE BASIS F OR DRAWING THE CONCLUSIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL, IT IS S UBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ADOPTING THE SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS @ 30% OF THE TOTAL RECEIVED IS VERY MUCH EXCESSIVE AND ON THE HIGHER S IDE. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED RETURN OF INCOME ON 18/09/2010 DECLARING NIL INCOME WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECT ION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). THERE AFTER THE SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT BY TH E DEPARTMENT ON THE 2 BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 25 TH AND 26 TH MARCH, 2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION CERTAIN DISCRIMINATING D OCUMENTS / PAPERS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED AND THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE DIRECTOR NAMELY SHRI SANDEEP GARG WAS ALSO RECORDED, IN HIS STATEMENT SH RI GARG CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT NO PATIENT REGISTER, CASE REGISTER HA D BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WER E NOT MAINTAINED AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE COMPANY EXCEPT CASH MEMOS ISSUED TO THE PATIENTS. SHRI KAPIL KUMAR (RECEPTIONIST) WHO WAS WORKING WIT H THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SINCE 2002, ALSO ADMITTED THAT HE WAS PREPARING LIS T OF PATIENTS DAILY IN KACHA REGISTER WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVE Y OPERATION. HE ALSO ADMITTED THAT AS A RECEPTIONIST HE DAILY PREPARED A SHEET ON WHICH THE NAME OF THE PATIENTS AND THE TESTS, WHICH WERE TO BE UNDERT AKEN AND THE FEE CHARGED FROM THEM WAS WRITTEN THE SAME WERE HANDED OVER ALO NGWITH CASH TO DR. SANDEEP GARG, HOWEVER THE RECEIPTS WERE ONLY ISSUED TO THE PATIENT WHO DEMANDED THE SAME. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO E XPLAIN AS TO WHY ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS I.E. 63% AN AMOU NT OF RS. 51,06,943/- MAY NOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O. WHICH READS AS UNDER: 'IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS NOTICED THAT DURING THE RECORDING OF STATEMENT OF SH. SANDEEP GARG, S/O SH, KRISHAN LAL GARG, R/O HOUSE NO. 71, SIBIA COLONY, PATIALA REVEALS THAT, AN AMOU NT OF RS.7,77,900/- HAS BEEN STATED TO BE RECEIVED FROM O NE SH. PAWAN NARULA, NRI, AS FRIENDLY LOAN AND THE SAME HAS BEEN STATED TO BE GIVEN TO M/S ALFA RADIOLOGICAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMIT ED, JAGDISH ASHRAM ROAD, PATIALA BY HIM WHICH WAS NOT RETURNED TILL DATE. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE GIVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF SUCH PERSON ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SUCH LOAN. 2) DURING THE SURVEY OPERATIONS U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CONDUCTED ON 25 TO 26/03/2010, A KACHA REGISTE R MAINTAINED BY THE RECEPTIONIST WAS FOUND IN WHICH A LIST OF PA TIENTS VISITED ON THE DAY OF SURVEY ONLY WAS AVAILABLE. EARLIER DAYS' SUCH LISTS WERE FOUND DESTROYED. IN THIS REGISTER, THE AMOUNT OF FE E CHARGED HAS BEEN SHOWN AT 1/10 TH OF THE ACTUAL FEE RECEIVED BY IGNORING ZERO DIGIT AS VERIFIED FROM THE REFERRED TEST SLIPS FOUN D FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES AS ALSO ADMITTED BY THE RECEPTIONIST. HOWE VER, THE RECEPTIONIST FURTHER ADDED THAT THE AVERAGE RECEIPT S OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS.60000-70000/- APPROX. PER DAY. A CASH OF RS. 54,840/- WAS FOUND FROM THE RECEIPT COUNTER WHI CH WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED UPTO 1.45 P.M. ON THE DAY OF SUR VEY AND THE RECEPTIONIST IN HIS STATEMENT ADMITTED CATEGORICALL Y THAT THESE RECEIPTS REPRESENT AMOUNTS, RECEIVED FROM THE PATIE NTS WHO VISITED ONLY ON THE DAY OF SURVEY, WHEREAS CASH MEMOS WERE ISSUED BY THAT TIME FOR RS. 20,280/- ONLY. THUS, A SUM OF RS.34,56 0/- WAS FOUND DELIBERATELY UNACCOUNTED FOR UPTO 1.45 P.M. OF 25/0 3/2010 IN THE FORM OF DAILY SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS, IT SHOWS THA T THE ASSESSEE IS DECLARING RECEIPTS TO THE EXTENT OF ONLY 37% OF THE ACTUAL RECEIPTS AND 63% HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AS THE ASSESSEE HAVE B EEN SHOWING ITS RECEIPTS OF RS. 20,000/- APPROX. PER DAY AT ITS SWEET WILL AND NOT ON ACTUAL RECEIPT BASIS' 3 FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, THE MODUS-OPERANDI OF THE ASS ESSEE TO SUPPRESS RECEIPTS IS VERY MUCH CLEAR. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, STA TEMENT OF DR. SANDEEP GARG, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS, WAS RECORDED IN WHICH HE STATED THAT NO PATIENT REGISTER/CASE REGISTER HAS B EEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AT REGISTERED OF FICE OF THE COMPANY EXCEPT CASH MEMOS ISSUED TO THE PATIENTS. E VEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE CASH MEMOS FOR THE F .Y. 2009-10 EXCEPT FOR THE PERIOD 03/09/2009 TO 25/03/2010 ONLY . DR. SANDEEP GARG ALSO STATED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF EARL IER 6 YEARS ARE LYING WITH HIS C.A. SH. ANIL JINDAL WHEREAS SH. ANI L JINDAL CLARIFIED THAT NO RECORD INCLUDING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE P RECEDING YEARS OF THE COMPANY ARE LYING IN HIS OFFICE. APART FROM IT, THE RECEPTIONIST WHO IS WORKING WITH THIS COMPANY SINCE 2002 HAS ADMITTED THAT HE IS PREPARING A LIST OF PATIENTS DA ILY IN THE KACHA REGISTER, AS FOUND DURING SURVEY OPERATIONS, SINCE HIS JOINING THIS COMPANY IN 2002 AND THIS MODUS-OPERANDI HAS BEEN LE ARNT BY HIM FROM HIS-PREDECESSOR. FROM THESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ABOVE MODUS-OPERANDI OF SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS IS CONTIN UED IN THE EARLIER YEAR ALSO. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RECEIPTS OF RS.72,95,630/-. BY APPLYING THE SAME RATIO OF SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS I.E. 63% DURING THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION, THE SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION I.E. A.Y. 2010-11 WORK OUT TO RS.51,06,941/-. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE STATE WHY THE SUCH AMOUNT OF RS.51,06,941/- MAY NOT BE AD DED IN TOTAL INCOME. IN THE SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS, THERE ARE HUGE ADD ITIONS MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, YOU ARE REQUES TED TO PLEASE GIVE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE I.E. PURCHASE BILLS M AY ALSO BE SUPPLIED FOR MY VERIFICATION.' 4. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS WERE IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS DIAGNOSTIC TESTS CONDUCTED DU RING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAD DULLY BEEN RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE GOT A UDITED AND THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI KAPIL KUMAR WAS NEVER HAVING ANY STATEMENT OF UNDER RECORDING THE RECEIPTS FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDE RATION NOR ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE HAD BEEN DETECTED. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE IT WOULD BE WRONG TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED AMOUNT OTHER THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 72,95, 630/- REPRESENTING THE ACTUAL RECEIPT AS RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 5. THE A.O. HOWEVER DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 36,47,815/- BY OBSERVING A S UNDER: (I) AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, A KACHA REGISTER WAS M AINTAINED BY THE RECEPTIONIST IN WHICH A LIST OF PATIENTS/CUSTOMERS VISITING ON THE DAY OF SURVEY WAS AVAILABLE. FOR EARLIER DAYS SUCH LISTS WERE FOUND D ESTROYED. A KACHA REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE RECEPTIONIST WAS FOUND IN WHICH A LIST OF PATIENTS/CUSTOMERS VISITED ON THE DAY OF SURVEY WAS AVAILABLE. EARLIER DAYS SUCH LISTS WERE FOUND DESTROYED. IN THIS REGISTER, THE AMOUNT OF FEE CHAR GED WAS SHOWN AT 1/10 TH OF THE ACTUAL FEES RECEIVED BY IGNORING ZERO DIGIT AS VERI FIED FROM THE REFERRED TEST SLIPS FOUND FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES WHICH FACT HAS, AL SO BEEN ADMITTED AND CONFIRMED BY THE RECEPTIONIST/COUNTER CLERK OF THE BUSINESS PREMISES. 4 (II) DURING SURVEY, THE RECEPTIONIST ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE DAILY AVERAGE RECEIPTS OF THE COMPANY FOR CONDUCTING VARIOUS TESTS/LAB TES TS COMES, TO RS.60,000/- TO RS.70,000/-. A CASH OF RS.54,840/-WAS ALSO FOUND FROM THE RECEIPT COUNTER WHICH WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED UP TO 1.45 P.M. ON THE DAY OF SURVEY. THE RECEPTIONIST ALSO CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED IN HIS STA TEMENT THAT THESE RECEIPTS REPRESENT AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE PATIENTS/CUSTOM ERS WHO VISITED ONLY ON THE DAY OF SURVEY OPERATION WHEREAS CASH MEMOS ISSUED W ERE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.20,280/- ONLY, BY THAT TIME. THUS, A SUM OF RS.3 4,560/- WAS DELIBERATELY UNACCOUNTED FOR UP TO 1.45 P.M. ON 25/03/2010 IN TH E FORM OF DAILY SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DECLARIN G RECEIPTS TO THE TUNE OF 37% OF THE ACTUAL RECEIPTS AND BY THAT WAY 63% OF RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED. (III)FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT DAILY AVERAGE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE RS.20,000/- APPROX. PER DAY ON ITS SWE ET WILL AND NOT ON ACTUAL RECEIPT BASIS, MEANING THEREBY THAT THERE WAS SUPPR ESSING DAILY RECEIPTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.60,000/- TO 70,000/- PER DAY OR AT LEAST 63% LESS THEN ACTUALLY RECEIVED. (IV) BY ADOPTING THE ABOVE MODUS OPERANDI BY THE CO MPANY, IT WAS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT RECORDING THE ACTUAL RECEIPTS BUT SUPPRESS THE DAILY RECEIPTS IN ITS REC ORD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.72,95,630/- . THEREFORE, BY APPLYING A RATIO OF 63% AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE SUPPRESSION OF RECEI PTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WORKS OUT TO RS,51,26,639/-. HOWEVER, TAKIN G, A VERY LENIENT VIEW IN THE MATTER AND CONSIDERING ALL THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N THE RECORD.' I ESTIMATE THE RECEIPTS BY APPLYING 50% ONLY, WHICH WORKS OUT TO R S. 1,09,43,445/- [(50% X 72,95,630=RS.36,47,680) + 72,95,630] AS AGAINST THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.72,95,360/- IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 36,47,815/- IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODU CED IN PARA 5.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FOR THE COST OF REPETITION THE SAME IS NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN. ON THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION, THE LD. CIT(A)ASKED TH E REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 25/05/2017 AND INCORPORA TED IN PARA 5.2.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED ITS COUNTER COMMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 5.2.2 OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER, FOR THE COST OF REPETITION THE SAME ARE NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, RESTRICTED THE SUPP RESSED SALE AT 30% AS AGAINST 50% ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD AR, THE CASE LAWS CITED AND THE FINDING AND COUNTER COMMENTS OF THE LD AO , THE FAC TS OF THE CASE AND THE ABOVE DISCUSSION. IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPEL LANT'S STORY THAT THE ONE ZERO WAS MENTIONED LESS IN THE KACHCHA REGISTER AND THAT ALL CASH RECEIPTS WERE ISSUED ( IN NON PNDT CASES AFTER THE TESTS WERE CONCLUDED), DOES NOT, GI VEN THE PRE-PONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES, RING TRUE; FURTHER THE APPELLANT DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY CORE PATIENT REGISTER OTHER THAN IN PNDT CASE WHERE THERE IS CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR BREACH AND WAS UNAWARE WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED AND THE CA REFUSE D THAT THE BOOKS WERE WITH HIM AS 5 STATED. IT IS THUS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE OPER ATION OF THE APPELLANT WERE NOT COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT AND ALL RECEIPTS WERE NOT AC COUNTED FOR. THUS GIVEN THE ABOVE, I CONFIRM THE REJECTION OF THE OTHERWISE AUDITED BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AS THESE BOOKS ARE PREDICATED UPON THE ACTUAL CASH RECEIPTS ISSUED AND DO NOT REPRESENT A TRUE AND FAIR PICTURE OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. AS REGARDS THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME; IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT ALMOST ALL MACHINES DOING RADIOLOGICAL TESTS DURING THE PERIOD OF SURVEY HAD A COMPUTERISED CORE WHERE DETAILS OF THE TESTS DONE ARE RECORDED AND THE SAME NEED TO BE RET AINED FOR PNDT, AMC AND OTHER PURPOSES. HOWEVER, NEITHER DID THE APPELLANT OFFER TO GIVE DETAILS OF THE TESTS DONE AS PER THE RECORDS IN EACH MACHINE NOR DID THE LD AO SEEK THE SAME EITHER DURING SURVEY AND THEREAFTER. THESE RECORDS COULD HAVE BECOME A BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE TESTS DONE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE PREVIOUS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ALBEIT GIVING RELIEF FOR FAILED INVESTIGATIONS /TESTING/ COMPLIMENTARY TESTS. THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE. HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DAT E OF SURVEY BEING OTHER THAN A NORMAL DAY FOR THE APPELLANT, THAT THE CAT SCAN AND MRI MA CHINES CAME LATER DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR( THUS PROBABLY SKEWING THE DAILY COLL ECTIONS AFTER DEC 2009) AND DISCOUNTING THE STATEMENT OF THE RECEPTIONIST AND FURTHER GIVEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN AN INCREASE OF NEARLY 40 % RECEIPTS OVER THE EARLIER F Y. IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ESTIMATING THE SUPPRESSED SALES AT 50% OF THE TOTAL SALES DISC LOSED IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHALL BE SERVED IF THE SUPPRESSED SALES ARE TAKEN AT 30% OF THE TOTAL SALES. THE LD AO IS DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE SUPPRESSED SALES AFTER SUBSTITUTION 30% FOR 50%. ( THE ADDITION IS THUS DI RECTED TO BE RESTRICTED TO RS. 21,88,689) THUS ORDERED. THE APPELLANT PARTLY SUCCEEDS ON THESE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH ERE WAS NO BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY WHEN ALL THE RECEIPTS WERE ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE DULY AU DITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ANY BASIS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 9. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN TH E PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE A.O. ESTIMATED THE INCOME BY OBSERVING THA T A CASH OF RS. 54,840/- WAS FOUND FROM THE RECEIPT COUNTER WHEREAS THE CASH MEM O ISSUED WERE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,280/- ONLY. THUS SUM OF RS. 34,560 /- WAS DELIBERATELY UNACCOUNTED FOR. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS DECLARING RECEIPT TO THE TUNE OF 37% OF THE ACTUAL RECEIPT [ 20280/- X 1 00 / 54840] AND THE RECIPT WERE SUPPRESSED BY 63%. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIP T OF RS. 72,95,630/-, BY APPLYING THE RATIO OF 63%, THE A.O. WORKED OUT THE SUPPRESSION OF THE RECEIPT AT RS. 51,26,639/-. HOWEVER HE ESTIMATED RECEIPT BY AP PLYING THE 50% RATIO TO THE GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 72,95,630/- AND MADE THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 36,47,680/-. THEREAFTER WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN TO THE LD. CIT (A) IN FIRST APPEAL, HE CONSIDERED THAT 50% ESTIMATE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EX CESSIVE. THE LD. CIT(A) 6 CONSIDERED THE SUPPRESSED SALE @30% OF THE TOTAL SA LES AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 21,88,689/-. IN MY OPINION NEITHER THE A.O. NOR THE LD. CIT(A) WERE JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE SUPPRESSED SALE BY APPL YING THE RATIO OF 50% AND 30% RESPECTIVELY, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT WAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE SHORTAGE OF CASH IN HAND FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS THE SAME FOR ALL THE DAYS. SECONDLY THE A.O. ON THE ONE HAND STATED THAT THERE WAS SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPT BY 63% BUT HE ESTIMATED THE SUPPRESSED RECEIPT BY A PPLYING THE RATIO OF 50% WHICH SHOWS THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O. WAS WIT HOUT ANY BASIS. SIMILARLY THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO APPLIED 30% RATIO WITHOUT ANY BASIS PARTICULARLY WHEN HE HIMSELF STATED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY CONSIDERING TH E MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DATE OF SURVEY BEING OTHER THAN THE NORMAL DAYS FOR THE ASSESSEE. AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY CORE PA TIENT REGISTER AND WAS UNAWARE WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED . THEREFORE, IN SUCH TYPE OF CASES SOME ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE PARTI CULARLY WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED BY THE A.O. HOWEVER THE ADDI TION SUSTAINED WITHOUT ANY BASIS BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT RS. 21,88,689/- APPE ARS TO BE EXCESSIVE. I THEREFORE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND BY CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS TO COVER UP THE LEAKAGE OF REVENUE, IF ANY. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/06/2019 ). SD/- .., ( N.K. SAINI) ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 14/06/2019 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE