DR. S. CHANDRASEKARA CHANDILYA, CHENNAI V. ACIT,NCC-1, Chennai

ITA 875/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3533 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R ANITHA JCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: MURALI KUMARAN
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; TDS; Set aside; FORM 26AS
• Section: 201; 194J; 13; 147

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI , . , & BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189 /CHNY/2020 [IN ITA NOS 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020] ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 TO 2016-17) DR.S.CHANDRASEKARA CHANDILYA 13, 3 RD CROSS STREET, MANDAVELIPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 028. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-1 CHENNAI-600 034. PAN:AAUPC 3096J ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. MURALI KUMARAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENTBY : MS. R.ANITHA,JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 10.11.2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 11.2020 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE FIVE APPEALS AND FIVE STAY PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE BUT IDENTICA L ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2,CHEN NAI, ALL DATED 16.09.2020 AND PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2012-13 TO 2016-17. AS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF A RE TAKEN UP FOR DISPOSAL, THE STAY PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF 2 ITA NOS. 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189/CHNY/2020 CONVENIENCE, THE APPEALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND D ISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS MORE OR LESS FILED COMMON GROU NDS OF APPEAL FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFORE, FOR TH E SAKE OF BREVITY, GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 2-13 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- A. WHEN IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT ALL THE OUTPAT IENT CONSULTATION AMOUNTS ARE CHARGED BY APOLLO HOSPITALS AND ARE PAI D FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE APOLLO HOSPITALS TO THE ASSESSEE AFT ER DEDUCTING TDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING CREDIT TO THE SAID AMOUNT DISCLOSED IN MAKING A SEPARATE ADDITION FOR THE VERY SAME CONSULTATIONS. B. THE ADDITION AND THE RELATED TAX THERETO, RESULT S IN COMPLETE DOUBLE TAXATION. C. AT ANY RATE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE A NY ADDITION IN THE INCOME OF THE APOLLO HOSPITALS, PROPORTIONATE T O THE ADDITION OF 15% RETAINED BY THE APOLLO HOSPITALS, FOR THE IN-PA TIENTS AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 1 ST APRIL, 2013. D. WITH REGARD TO THE MEDICAL PROFESSION CARRIED O UT BY THE ASSESSE IN APOLLO HOSPITALS, WHICH RESULTED IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITION, SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COLLECT ANY AMOUNT DIRECTLY FROM THE PATIENTS NOR ISSUED ANY RECEIPTS AND APOLL O HOSPITALS HAVING ONLY RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT MAINTAINED THE SAID ACCOUNTS AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UNDER RULE 6E( HAS BEEN MAINTAINE D BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE VIZ, THE APOLLO HOSPITALS , WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NO ADDITIO N CAN BE MADE ON THE SAID SCORE IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT FOR NON- MAINTENANCE OF ANOTHER SET OF SEPARATE BOOKS BY THE ASSESSEE. E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SHARED EITHER THE EVIDENCE OR THE DETAILS OF THE EVIDENCE BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIV ED AN 3 ITA NOS. 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189/CHNY/2020 UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE FORM OF OUTPATIENT CONSUL TATION DONE AT APOLLO HOSPITALS, NUMBERING TO 2574 RS.500/- PER PA TIENT. F. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN ADDING THE INC OME WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE CORRESPONDING ITEMS IN THE ASSE SSMENT OF THE ALLEGED PAYER, APOLLO HOSPITALS ENTERPRISES LIMITED . NEITHER THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONS OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE EM PLOYER. APOLLO HOSPITALS ENTERPRISES LIMITED NOR A CORRESPONDING D ISALLOWANCE IN THEIR HANDS UNDER SECTION 40-A(3) OR ANY OTHER APPL ICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, FOR THE ALLEGED PAYMENT/EXPENSES IN CASH. G THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS IT SUFFERS FROM TH E VICE OF LACK OF FURNISHING THE INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSEE FOR RE-O PENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. H. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE INFORMATION BEING GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSM ENT, RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT VOID. I THE CONSULTATION LIST, UNLESS IT IS SUPPORTED B Y FEES CHARGED AND COLLECTED, CAN IN NO MANNER BE A BASIS OF MAKING AN Y ADDITION. J. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF ADDITION TO IN COME IS IN OPPOSITION TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE. K. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF ADDITION TO IN COME IS WITHOUT ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL. L. THE AMOUNT OF CONSULTATION RATE AND THEREBY THE TOTAL ADDITION ARE ARBITRARY. M. THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED DURING SEARCH IS NOT FROM OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT AND HENCE, IT IS UNAUTHORIZED, IN-GENUINE AND UNRELIABLE N. THE LEARNED CT (A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12, HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS FOR THE IDENTICAL SETS OF FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 4 ITA NOS. 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189/CHNY/2020 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER RENDERING HIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN DIFFERENT HOSPITALS INCLUDING THAT OF THE APOLLO HOSPITAL. THE ASSESSE E HAD ENTERED INTO CONTRACT WITH M/S. APOLLO HOSPITAL FOR SHARIN G PROFESSIONAL INCOME FROM OUT PATIENTS AS PER WHICH CLAUSE 2 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT STATES THAT ANY CONSIDERATION OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CONSULTANT TO THE PATIENTS, THE APOLLO HOSPITAL MA Y CHARGE PROFESSIONAL FEES TO THE PATIENTS AND AFTER RETAIN ING 15% OF THE FEES COLLECTED BALANCE AMOUNT SHALL BE PAID TO THE ASS ESSEE. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETUR N OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT ` 9,33,410/-. IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED RE CEIPT FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL AT ` 12,26,134/- WHICH HE RECEIVED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AFTER DEDUCTING TDS U/S.194J OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE CASE HA S BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED U/S.147 OF THE ACT, ON THE B ASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL C IRCLE, CHENNAI, AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED PROFESSIONAL IN COME FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL IN CASH AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN HIS 5 ITA NOS. 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189/CHNY/2020 RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S.148 DATED 13.03.2019 WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 21.03.2019 AND STATED THAT RETURN FILE D U/S.139 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/ S.148 OF THE ACT. THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS INCLUDIN G BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED UNDER RULE 6F(2) OF THE INCOME TAX RULE S, 1962. THEREAFTER, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 14.11.2019 W AS ALSO ISSUED AND CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY A DDITIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INCOME RECEIVED FRO M APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED NOR F ILED ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER PASSED EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 R.W.S 147 OF TH E ACT AND MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.12,87,000/- TOWARDS INCOME RECEIVED FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVE D FROM PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHENNAI. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) . BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS AND 6 ITA NOS. 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189/CHNY/2020 ARGUED THAT CONSULTANCY SERVICE FEE RECEIVED FROM A POLLO HOSPITAL GROUP HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN GROSS RECEIPTS RECEIVED FROM PROFESSION FOR THE YEAR AND SUCH PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FRO M BANK. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT APOLLO HOSPITAL GRO UP HAS MADE PAYMENT AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT AFTER DEDUCT ING 15% FEES COLLECTED FROM PATIENTS TOWARDS THEIR CHARGES THR OUGH BANK AND HAS ALSO DEDUCTED TDS AS PER SECTION 194J OF THE AC T. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REQUIRED TO BE MA INTAINED UNDER RULE 6F OF I.T. RULES HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BY APOL LO HOSPITAL CONTAINING DETAILS OF PATIENTS AND THEREFORE, THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT SEPARATELY MAINTAINED THE SAID RECORDS. THE LEARNE D CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETA ILS INCLUDING PATIENTS WHO DID NOT PAY THE CONSULTANCY FEE IN ACC ORDANCE WITH RULE 6F OF I.T. RULES, 1962 AND ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP IS UNDISCLOSED 7 ITA NOS. 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189/CHNY/2020 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . AGGRIEVED BY THE LEARNED C IT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP, CHENNAI, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND AS PER THE SA ID AGREEMENT THE APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP HAS PAID 85% OF FEES CO LLECTED FROM OUT PATIENTS THROUGH CHEQUE AFTER DEDUCTING TDS AND THE SAID PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN FORM 26AS. THE LEARNED AR FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED THE AMOUN T RECEIVED FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND PAID NECESSARY TAXES AND FURTHER ADDITION TOWARDS THE SAID AMOUNT ON AD- HOC BASIS BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM PRINCIPAL CIT., CENTRA L CIRCLE, CHENNAI AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF SAME INCOME. THE LEAR NED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER COLLECTED ANY AM OUNT FROM PATIENTS AND ALL AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BY AP OLLO HOSPITAL AND NECESSARY RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED AS PER RULE 6F(2) HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BY APOLLO HOSPITAL, WHICH HAS N OT BEEN DISPUTED. THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MAKING A DDITION TOWARDS 8 ITA NOS. 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189/CHNY/2020 SAME INCOME TWICE FOR NOT PRODUCING THE REQUIRED RE CORDS UNDER RULE 6F AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION, WHICH IS INCORR ECT. 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTING TH E ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES NOR FILED ANY DETAILS TO JUSTIFY THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL G ROUP HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE REL EVANT YEARS AND HENCE THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP IS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED VARIOUS DETAILS INCLUDING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, BANK STATEMENTS AN D FORM 26AS TO PROVE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN HI S RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, BU T THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE IF AT ALL, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN ALREADY CONSIDERED IN HIS RETURNS, THE MATTER MAY BE SET AS IDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE IN LIGHT OF VARIOUS ADDITIONAL DETAILS. 9 ITA NOS. 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189/CHNY/2020 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED MATERIA LS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. THE SOLE ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATION F ROM THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IS WHETHER C ONSULTATION CHARGES RECEIVED FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP, CHENNA I WAS INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEARS OR WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM PCIT., CE NTRAL CIRCLE, CHENNAI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITIONS T OWARDS INCOME RECEIVED FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP, CHENNAI ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM PCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE, CH ENNAI, AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONSULTATION CHAR GES @ ` 500/- PER OUTPATIENT AND FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , HE HAS ATTENDED 2574 OUTPATIENTS WHICH WORKS OUT TO ` 12,87,000/- AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP, CHENNAI, HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE AND SAID PAYMENT HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO TDS UNDER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT AND FURTHER THE SAME HAS B EEN INCLUDED IN 10 ITA NOS. 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189/CHNY/2020 HIS GROSS RECEIPTS REPORTED FOR THE YEAR IN THE IN COME-TAX RETURNS FILED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BANK STATEMENTS AND FORM 26AS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT AS PER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE PRINCIPAL, M/S.A POLLO HOSPITAL GROUP, CHENNAI HAS MAINTAINED NECESSARY RECORDS REQ UIRED TO BE MAINTAINED UNDER RULE 6F OF I.T RULES, 1962 CONTAIN ING PARTICULARS OF PATIENTS AND AMOUNT CHARGED AND SAID AMOUNT HAS B EEN DIRECTLY COLLECTED BY APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP, CHENNAI FROM PA TIENTS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP, CHENNAI AND AS PER WHICH APOLLO HOSPITAL GR OUP DIRECTLY COLLECTS CONSULTANCY CHARGES FROM OUTPATIENTS AN D AFTER DEDUCTING 15% OF THE FEES COLLECTED FROM PATIENTS, THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE . FURTHER, THE SAID PAYM ENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AFTER DEDUCTING APPLI CABLE TDS UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM APOLLO HOSPI TAL GROUP, CHENNAI IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 11 ITA NOS. 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189/CHNY/2020 AND ALSO CLAIMED TDS DEDUCTED BY THE PRINCIPAL IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. ALL THESE RECORDS ARE PART OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FROM THE ABOVE, PRIMA-FACIE I T APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FR OM APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT MAKIN G AD-HOC ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTY SOURCE ON THE PRETEXT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONSULTA TION CHARGES IN CASH AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION, WHICH IS INCORREC T. BUT, THE FACT REMAINS THAT RELEVANT DOCUMENTS INCLUDING BANK STA TEMENT AND FORM 26AS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OR EVEN BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE N EITHER APPEARED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NOR FILED AN Y DETAILS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO EXAMINE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIGHT OF VARIOUS EVIDENCES INCLUDING FORM 26AS FILED FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE NEE DS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LIMITED PUR POSE OF EXAMINING 12 ITA NOS. 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189/CHNY/2020 THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM APOL LO HOSPITAL GROUP, CHENNAI, TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT IS PART OF INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR . IN CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OUND THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP, CHENNAI , IS INCLUDED AS INCOME IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE TO WARDS CONSULTATION CHARGES RECEIVED FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP. ITA NOS. 875 TO 878/CHNY/2020: 8. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE ISSUE WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED IN ITA NO.874/CH NY/2020 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH OF ITA NO.874/CHNY/2010 SHALL MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY TO THESE APPEALS AS WELL. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAME REASONS, WE SET ASIDE THESE APPEALS ALSO TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECT HIM TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN LIGHT OF VARIOUS EVID ENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING FORM 26AS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSE SSMENT YEARS . 13 ITA NOS. 874 TO 878/CHNY/2020 & S.P NOS.185 TO 189/CHNY/2020 THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 TO 2016-17 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE FIVE STAY PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH NOVEMBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- ( ( . ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (G.MANJUNATHA ) / VICE-PRESIDENT $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & /CHENNAI, ' /DATED 10 TH NOVEMBER, 2020 DS )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , () /CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. * 1 /DR 6. /GF .