ITO, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad V. Shri Dr. Mukesh Raj, Hyderabad

ITA 652/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3219 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B V PRASAD REDDY
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B ', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.652/HYD/11 : ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09 INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(2), HYDERABAD. V/S. DR.MUKESH RAJ, HYDERABAD. ( PAN AACCM 2002 M ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.V.PRASAD REDDY RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2008-09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, DESPITE NOTICE, NONE A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THIS APPEAL EX-PARTE -QUA THE ASSESSEE- ON MERITS, AFTER HEARING THE LEA RNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE AS UN DER- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRAR Y TO THE MATERIAL FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DEVIATING FROM THE MAIN ISSU E, I.E. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED CONSULTANCY RECEIPTS FROM SECOND CLINIC IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT OR NOT. 3. THE CIT(A) HAVING CONFIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT INCLUDED THE CONSULTANCY RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF SECOND C LINIC IN THE BOOKS, OUGHT TO HAVE SUSTAINED THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD. ITA NO652/HYD/11 DR.MUKESH RAJ, HYDERABAD 2 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE WRITTEN ADMISS ION BY THE ASSESSEE INS SURVEY AND SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THAT HE USED TO ATTEND 30 TO 35 PATIENTS PER CLINIC AND CHARGED CONSULTANCY FEE OF RS .200/- PER HEAD. 5. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN BRINGING THE ISSUE OF WO RKING FOR MARATHON HOURS AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER RAISED THIS ISSUE IN ANY PRO CEEDINGS AND ALSO NEVER CONTESTED. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RETR ACT AT ANY POINT OF TIME FROM THE STATEMENT GIVEN IN SURVEY AND SCRUTINY PRO CEEDINGS THAT HE USED TO ATTEND 30 TO 35 PATIENTS PER CLINIC AND CHARGED CONSULTANCY FEE OF RS.200/.- PER PATIENT. 6. THE CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITIONS ARBITRARILY AN D FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE A.O. HAD ALREADY GIVEN SUBSTANTIAL RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING LESSER NUMBER OF PATIENTS PER DAY, LESSER NU MBER OF DAYS IN A YEAR & LESSER AM OUNT OF CONSULTANCY RECEIPT PER PATIENT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTE D FACT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.3 LAKHS. WE FIND IN VI EW OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 [F. NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ], DATED 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, THE PRESENT APPEAL INVOLVING TAX EFFECT OF LE SS THAN RS.3-LAKHS IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8.7.2011 SD/- SD/- (AKBER BASHA) (G.C.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DT/- 8.7.2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. DR.MUKESH RAJ, H.NO.23-5-260, INSIDE LALDARWAZA, HYDERABAD 2. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(2), HYDERABAD. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) - VI, HYDERABAD. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VI, HYDERABAD 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S ITA NO652/HYD/11 DR.MUKESH RAJ, HYDERABAD 3