Life Care Hospital Ltd., Indore V. DCIT, Central-I, Indore

ITSSA 43/Ind/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8875 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE FILED A WRITTENSUBMISSION
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 132; 271(1)(c); 13

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर Ɋायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.42 & 41/Ind/2023(AY:2008-09 & 2009-10) IT(SS)A No.40 & 43/Ind/2023(AY:2012-13 & 2013-14) Life Care Hospital Ltd. 2, PSP-11, Scheme No.78, Part II, Vijay Nagar, Indore (PAN: AABCL0083E) बनाम/ Vs. DCIT, (Central)-1 Indore (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Assessee by CA Shri Anil Khandelwal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement 02.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by a consolidated appeal-order dated 20.06.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of a consolidated assessment-order dated 30.03.2016 passed by ACIT, Central-1, Indore [“AO”] u/s 153A/143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], the assessee has filed the captioned four (4) appeals for Assessment-Years [“AY”] 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 and 2013-14, on following grounds: Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 2 of 15 IT(SS)A No. 42/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 6,66,074 made by A.O. who failed to consider the explanation of appellant recorded in A.O.'s Order. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 6,66,074 in a confusion and arbitrary manner without properly understanding the facts of the case so the said addition deserve to be deleted.” IT(SS)A No. 41/Ind/2023 – AY 2009-10: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly and contrary to evidences in seized documents, confirmed addition of Rs. 18,788/- as commission income in place of refund of excess amount payable to LCH by Lifecare Medicose.” IT(SS)A No. 40/Ind/2023 – AY 2012-13: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 3,40,000/- as cash salary paid to doctors not recorded in books, without giving set off against availability of sufficient cash with the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating addition of Rs. 8,65,899/- as commission contrary to evidence in seized documents showing the same as refund of money to LCH by Lifecare Medicose. ” IT(SS)A No. 43/Ind/2023 – AY 2013-14: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 4,07,000/- as cash Salary paid to doctors without considering claim of set off against sufficient availability of cash. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating addition Rs. 5,70,531/- as commission in place of refund of excess amount payable to LCH by Lifecare Medicose as evidenced in seized documents.” 2. Since these appeals arise from common orders of lower-authorities and involve issues of common nature; they were heard together at the Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 3 of 15 request of parties and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the assessee is a company engaged in running and managing hospital and related activities. A search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon assessee on 04.10.2013, pursuant to which the assessments were framed u/s 153A/ 143(3) for AY 2008-09 to 2014-15. Presently, the assessee is in appeal before us for four (4) AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 and 2013-14 wherein the AO made certain additions. The assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) but could not succeed fully. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal on the grounds mentioned in the beginning. For the sake of smoothness, we shall crystallise the issues involved in various years/ grounds and accordingly adjudicate issue wise. Issue No. 1 – Ground No. 1 & 2 of AY 2008-09: 4. This issue relates to the addition of Rs. 6,66,074/- made by AO on account of unaccounted fee receipts. 5. The AO has made this addition in sub-para 9.16 of para 9 of assessment-order which reads as under: “9.16 Further, on perusal of data recovered from the seized hard disk, it is found that total Doctors Fees Received of Rs. 22,65,474/- was received from the Patients, but in audited accounts, it is found only Rs. 15,99,400/- has been mentioned. Therefore the Ld. Counsel has been given show caused as to why an addition of difference amount of Rs. 6,66,074/- should not be made to Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 4 of 15 the total income for A.Y.2008-09. The assessee did not make any satisfactorily reply on this issue. Therefore it is evident that assessee has nothing to say in this regards. Hence, an addition of Rs.6,66,074/- is being done for A.Y. 2008- 09. As the Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars, Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of 'Act' is initiated separately on this issue.” 6. During first-appeal, the assessee made submission to CIT(A). The CIT(A) has re-produced assessee’s submission in Para 3.1.1., which reads as under: “3.1.1 The appellant during appellate proceedings filed written submissions which are reproduced hereunder:- Ground No. 1: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs 6,66,074 on account of patients fees on the pretext of difference in hard disc and audited accounts." a. Ld. A.O. observed in para 9.16 of his order that, 3 "On perusal of data recovered from the seized hard disc, it is found that doctors fee received of Rs 22,65,474 was received from patients but in audited accounts it is found only Rs 15,99,400 has been mentioned. Therefore the Ld. counsel has been given notice to show cause as to why an addition of Rs 6,66,074 should not be made for A.Y. 2008-09. The appellant did not make any satisfactory reply on issue. It is evident that appellant had nothing to say in this regard. Hence an addition is being made of Rs 6,66,074". b. It is humbly submitted that appellant has offered explanation vide reply dated 11.01.2016 and 23-02-2016 (P. 127 and 142 of PB respectively) of the submissions before Ld. AO. It was clarified therein that in the books of accounts there are several heads of receipts. While preparing final accounts, P&L A/c, relevant heads are clubbed together and shown under one main head as 'Hospital Receipts' in the P&L A/c. Aggregate amount of various income heads (net of relevant expenses) are shown in P&L Account. Appellant requested to verify the details from the respective ledger accounts, books of accounts produced before him. However Ld. AO without considering the explanation of appellant, rejected the same in a summary, and whimsical manner. We submit herewith the respective ledger accounts for your perusal in support of above contention. Ld. AO did not disclose the head under which the addition is made. The addition so is made in a capricious and surmises manner and is not sustainable. It is therefore requested to kindly delete the said addition and oblige.” Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 5 of 15 [Emphasis supplied] However, the CIT(A) rejected assessee’s submission and upheld AO’s order in next Para 3.1.2 observing and holding thus: “3.1.2 I have considered the facts of the case plea raised by the appellant and findings of the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO during assessment proceedings on perusal of data recovered from hard disk found that appellant during AY 2008-09 has shown doctor's fees receipt of Rs. 22,65,474/-, however, as per audited books of account the receipt of doctors’ fees had been shown at Rs. 15,99,400/-. Therefore, addition of Rs. 6,66,074/- was made in AY 2008-09. Per contra, the appellant has contended that in books of account there are various heads of receipts, however, while preparing balance sheet all heads are clubbed under main head as 'Hospital Receipts' in P&L account and all the transaction are fully recorded in books of account. The appellant here has failed to furnish any details viz. Details of heads under which impugned income was recorded, details of subsequent payments etc. Therefore, in absence of any conclusive evidence showing receipt of doctor's fees of Rs. 22,65,474/- to be recorded in books of account, the addition made by the Id AO amounting to Rs. 6,66,074/- is found to be justified. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the findings of the Id AO and the addition made on this account of Rs. 6,66,074 is confirmed. Therefore, appeal on this ground is dismissed.” [Emphasis supplied] 7. Before us, Ld. AR for assessee filed a Written-Submission, re- produced below: “Grounds No. 1: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 6,66,074 made by A.O who failed to consider the explanation of appellant recorded in A.O.'s Order." The dispute relates to AY. 2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08) almost 8 years prior to search. Assessments completed in the year 2016. The issue is self- explanatory as recorded by Ld. A.O. in his order at Para 9.6 of his order stated as under: Ĥæन-77 : मɇ आपको सच[ कȧ काय[वाहȣ के दौरान जÞत कंÜयूटर हाड[ ͫडèक कȧ working copy से print out ͧलए दèतावेज़ जो कȧ path computer operator 2.1/other had Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 6 of 15 extra/New Folder(2)/Dr.fees monthwise पर िèथत है को आपको Ǒदखा रहा हु। इस चाट[ के अनुसार ͪव×तीय वष[ 2007-08 मɅ doctors' fees कुल 2265474 Ǒदखाई गई है जब कȧ ͪव×तीय वष[ के profit & loss a/c मɅ dr. fees Rs. 1599400 (audited accounts) मɅ Ǒदखाई गई है। मɇ आपको आपके ɮवारा Ĥèतुत return कȧ copy भी Ǒदखा रहा हु । कृपया इसे देखकर इसके अंतर को èपçट करे। उ×तर- युÈत चाट[ शीट return of income & profit & loss के schedule को देखने कȧ पæचात मैने उÈत चाट[ मɅ Dr. fees के साथ referral payment जो कȧ doctors' को cash मɅ Ǒदया जाता है, भी include हो सकता है। Referral amount कȧ accounting ना होने के कारण Dr. fees का amount हȣ P&L A/c मɅ दश[या गया है। (Dr. Brajbala Tiwari). In Para 9.2 of his order, Ld. A.O. has discussed referral payment to outside doctors in cash not recorded in books because such payments are recovered from patients and paid directly to doctors at the counter. It did not form part of appellant’s income. This is accepted also by Ld. A.O. in para 9.8 also. Ld. A.O. discussed about such fees and he has himself charged 10% of such fees as commission which was deleted by Ld. CIT(A). The doctor fees and referral fees are separately collected since long being a regular and established-practice in the hospital business. The Ld. A.O. in para 9.16 by wrongly noting that assessee has nothing to say in this regard (difference) and added the amount in imaginary way. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition stating that in the absence of any conclusive evidence, showing receipt of Rs. 22,65,474 to be recorded in books of accounts, the addition made is confirmed. It is submitted that Dr. Brajbala Tiwari has given a reasonable plausible explanation in her statement which was not rejected by Ld. CIT (A) and A.O. The issue pertain to 8 years old from the year 2016. So it is difficult to give any conclusive evidence and other relevant facts are already noted in the order of Ld. A.O. and accepted by him. So, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition in arbitrary manner.” Ground-2: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law to confirm addition of Rs. 6,66,074 in a confusion and arbitrary manner without properly understanding the facts of the case so the said addition deserve to be deleted." The seized paper was not signed, dated and prepared by whom was not enquired. The reliability and correctness of audited accounts were not questioned by AO nor rejected. So the entire difference amount was wrongly added in an improper manner and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A).” Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 7 of 15 Ld. AR confined his arguments on the above line of reasoning mentioned in the Written-Synopsis for Ground No. 1 and prayed to delete the addition made by AO. Ld. AR, however, did not plead the reasoning mentioned above for Ground No. 2. 8. Replying to above, Ld. DR for revenue supported the orders of lower- authorities. He submitted that the lower-authorities have rightly made/ upheld addition because from the data recovered from hard disk seized during search, it was found that the total ‘doctor fee’ received by assessee was Rs. 22,65,474/- but the assessee recorded only Rs. 15,99,400/- in accounts. Therefore, there were unrecorded receipts of Rs. 6,66,074/- for which the AO show-caused assessee but the assessee did not make any satisfactory submission. Further, the CIT(A) has also categorically noted that assessee has failed to furnish any detail in support of explanation made before him. Therefore, orders passed by lower-authorities making/upholding the impugned addition are in order and must be upheld without any interference. 9. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities. The undisputed facts are such (i) that the data revealed by a hard disk seized during search showed that the assessee received doctor fee of Rs. 22,65,474/-, and (ii) the assessee’s audited accounts showed recorded receipts of Rs. 15,99,400/- only. Thus, there was a difference of Rs. 6,66,074/-. Now, to explain this difference, Ld. AR is Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 8 of 15 harping upon the statement given by Dr. Brajbala Tiwari (director of assessee-company) in response to Q.No. 77 which is noted by AO in sub- para 9.6 of Para 9 of assessment-order. Although we have re-produced the same in foregoing paragraph but still repeat here for a ready reference: “Ĥæन-77 : मɇ आपको सच[ कȧ काय[वाहȣ के दौरान जÞत कंÜयूटर हाड[ ͫडèक कȧ working copy से print out ͧलए दèतावेज़ जो कȧ path computer operator 2.1/other had extra/New Folder(2)/Dr.fees monthwise पर िèथत है को आपको Ǒदखा रहा हु। इस चाट[ के अनुसार ͪव×तीय वष[ 2007-08 मɅ doctors' fees कुल 2265474 Ǒदखाई गई है जब कȧ ͪव×तीय वष[ के profit & loss a/c मɅ dr. fees Rs. 1599400 (audited accounts) मɅ Ǒदखाई गई है। मɇ आपको आपके ɮवारा Ĥèतुत return कȧ copy भी Ǒदखा रहा हु । कृपया इसे देखकर इसके अंतर को èपçट करे। उ×तर- युÈत चाट[ शीट return of income & profit & loss के schedule को देखने कȧ पæचात मैने उÈत चाट[ मɅ Dr. fees के साथ referral payment जो कȧ doctors' को cash मɅ Ǒदया जाता है, भी include हो सकता है। Referral amount कȧ accounting ना होने के कारण Dr. fees का amount हȣ P&L A/c मɅ दश[या गया है। (Dr. Brajbala Tiwari).” From this, Ld. AR is contending that the difference was on account of ‘referral fee of doctors’ directly recovered from patients and paid directly to concerned doctors at the counter. Ld. AR further wants to canvass that the AO has already made addition @ 10% commission on such “referral fee” (vide Para 9.14 and 9.15 of assessment-order). Hence, the AO should not have made addition of difference of Rs. 6,66,074/- vide Para No. 9.16 of assessment-order. However, we are not impressed by this submission of Ld. AR. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the addition of 10% commission qua “referral fee” has been made in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 whereas the data relating to fee collection Rs. 22,65,474/- revealed by hard Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 9 of 15 disk and Rs. 15,99,400/- recorded in audited accounts relate to AY 2008-09 and therefore addition of difference of Rs. 6,66,074/- has also been made in AY 2008-09 under consideration before us. Secondly, the AO has used the reply given by assessee’s director in Q.No. 77 only to support the addition made in sub-para 9.14 and 9.15 qua ‘referral fee’ which was otherwise evidenced by some other seized material as mentioned in sub-para 9.3-9.4 of assessment-order. Therefore, the addition of 10% commission qua “referral fee” is an independent addition; the addition qua the unaccounted fee of Rs. 6,66,074/- is separately made in sub-para 9.16 for which the AO has categorically noted that the assessee could not make any satisfactory reply. Thirdly, in reply to Q.No. 77, the assessee’s director has merely given a probable reply that the “referral payment” to doctors might also be included in the chart. Thereafter, when the AO particularly show-caused the assessee during assessment-proceeding qua this very issue, the assessee filed following reply dated 23.02.2016 to AO, copy at Page No. 88 to 91 of Paper-Book: “15. Regarding difference in the amount of Doctors' Fees as shown in P&L A/c of 2007-08 at Rs. 22.65 lakhs and Rs. 15.99 lakhs as per audited accounts, we have to state that this has already been replied vide submission dated 11.01.2016. In the books of accounts, there are several account heads of receipts. While preparing balance sheet, relevant heads are clubbed and shown under the main head as "Hospital Receipts" in P&L Account. The heads clubbed are correctly shown in the final P&L A/c as per books of accounts. Various receipt head accounts are showing gross receipts whereas in P&L A/c, net amount of respective receipt head are taken, i.e. net of relevant expenses debited to that account. This may be verified from the respective ledger account, gross receipts credited and expenses debited to that account, the difference of this would be net receipts which is credited to P&L A/c. Thus, Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 10 of 15 there is no discrepancy having any impact on profitability of the assessee. We may further explain this from the books of accounts if so desired.” However, the AO found the above reply as ‘unsatisfactory’. During first- appeal, the assessee filed identical reply as noted by CIT(A) in para 3.1.1 of his order, already re-produced earlier in para 6 of this order, but the CIT(A) noted that assessee failed to furnish any detail. Thus, the assessee’s stand before both of the lower-authorities was such that “in the books of accounts, there are several account heads of receipts. While preparing balance sheet, relevant heads are clubbed and shown under the main head as "Hospital Receipts" in P&L Account. The heads clubbed are correctly shown in the final P&L A/c as per books of accounts. Various receipt head accounts are showing gross receipts whereas in P&L A/c, net amount of respective receipt head are taken i.e. net of relevant expenses debited to that account. This may be verified from the respective ledger account, gross receipts credited and expenses debited to that account, the difference of this would be net receipts which is credited to P&L A/c.” But, however, the assessee has not substantiated his stand. Even before us, the assessee has not given any details of the grouping or netting of figures made for preparation of audited accounts to show that the difference was only because of grouping or netting, otherwise the figures would tally. Needless to mention that if the difference is only because of grouping or netting of figures, it could very well be explained by a simple exercise. Since the assessee has failed to explain his stand made before lower-authorities, the authorities have rightly made/upheld addition. We do not find any mistake in the orders of lower- Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 11 of 15 authorities and hence refrain from making any interference. This issue is therefore rejected and these grounds are dismissed. Issue No. 2 – Ground No. 1 of AY 2009-10, Ground No. 2 of AY 2012-13 and Ground No. 2 of AY 2013-14: 10. Next issue is with regard to the addition of Rs. 18,788/-, 8,65,899/- and 5,70,531/- upheld by CIT(A) out of addition of Rs. 57,149/-, 12,20,900/- and 20,29,432/- made by AO respectively in AY 2009-10, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 11. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee used to purchase medicines from M/s Life Care Medicose and make payments through cheques. However, the supplier use to over-invoice the price and give cash-refund of over-invoiced differential. Thus, the impugned addition made by AO is on account of cash received from supplier towards over-invoiced purchase-price of medicines. Ld. AR made a straightforward submission that the assessee is not aggrieved by the amount of addition upheld by CIT(A), the assessee’s grievance is very limited i.e. the AO has described the addition as “commission receipt on sale of medicines” which is wrong. According to Ld. AR, the assessee has not received any commission, the assessee has only received cash refund of over-invoiced purchase price. Hence, the description given by AO to the transaction/addition is wrong and needs to be set right. Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 12 of 15 12. Ld. DR for revenue made a limited submission that he fails to understand as to why the assessee has any grievance only for the description given by AO when there is no grievance qua the addition sustained. He submitted that there is no substance in the claim of assessee and it should be rejected outrightly. 13. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities. It is an interesting grievance of assessee whereby though the assessee does not want any relief qua the quantum of addition sustained, the assessee only seeks to change the description/nomenclature of addition. We do not know what benefit the assessee might be getting by raising such an issue. Be that as it may, we would only refer the following para concluded by CIT(A) on Page 31-32 of his order: “As claimed by the appellant, the said working has been made on the basis of seized material which have been found and seized from hard disk found from premises of the appellant. After analysing statement of Smt Brijbala Tiwari recorded on 04.12.2013 (reply to Q.No. 36), I find that the appellant had earned commission @ 25% on each transaction i.e. either medicine purchased for the use of hospital or purchased through mediclaim package. Therefore, the maximum commission which could have been earned is @ 25%. However, in reply to Q.No 38 she admitted that commission @ 10% was also received in addition to difference on account of over invoicing and therefore, the appellant considering both the accounts has offered commission income which ranges between 28.90% to 33.38% in AYs 2010-11 to 2014-15. Here it is pertinent to mention that statement of Shri Dinesh Mehta was also recorded during post search investigation on 10.03.2014, wherein, in reply to Q.No 4, Shri Mehta explained the entire modus operandi and stated that the for the patients of mediclaim package the bill was prepared after increasing the amount which was subsequently given to hospital in cash. Further, addition 10% commission was given on bill issued for the patients of mediclaim package. Hence, the claim made by both Smt Brijbala Tiwari and Shri Dinesh Mehta are similar in nature. Here, it is worth mentioning that the amount shown by Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 13 of 15 appellant in respect of purchase of medicines from M/s Life Care Medicose includes both for the use of hospital and for the mediclaim package. Therefore, in absence of any contrary evidence on record in support of findings of the Ld. AO, the commission income offered by the appellant is found to be justified and acceptable for AYs 2010-11 to 2014-15.” [Emphasis supplied] Thus, from a bare reading of above, we find that the CIT(A) has noted that the assessee has been receiving commission for two categories of transactions, namely (i) medicines purchased for use of hospital, or (ii) purchased through mediclaim package. The CIT(A) has also referred the statement of one Shri Dinesh Mehta wherein he stated “that for the patients of mediclaim package, the bill was prepared after increasing the amount which was subsequently given to hospital in cash.”. He has further noted “Here, it is worth mentioning that the amount shown by appellant in respect of purchase of medicines from M/s Life Care Medicose includes both for the use of hospital and for the mediclaim package.” Thus, there is an element of commission income in the addition made by AO at least for the medicines of Mediclaim package, if not for all. Therefore, we are not inclined to change the description given by lower-authorities in their orders. Needless to mention that the assessee is not aggrieved by the quantum of addition. Therefore, we hardly find any worth in the issue raised by assessee. The same is hereby rejected and all grounds raised are dismissed. Issue No. 3 – Ground No. 1 of AY 2012-13 and Ground No. 1 of AY 2013- 14: Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 14 of 15 14. Last issue is with regard to the addition of Rs. 3,40,000/- and 4,07,000/- made by AO and upheld by CIT(A) on account of unexplained expenditure of salary payment to doctors. 15. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee does not have any objection against the addition made/upheld by lower-authorities. The assessee’s grievance is very limited i.e. the AO has not allowed set-off of cash available with assessee on account of various additions made by AO, more particularly the addition made on account of cash-refund received from supplier of medicines (dealt in earlier part of this order). Therefore, the AO should be directed to allow set-off. 16. Ld. DR for revenue strongly opposed the request of assessee. He submitted that set-off cannot be allowed on hypothetical basis, it has to be established by assessee. He submitted that the assessee has not filed any cash flow statement or any detail or analysis to show that the salary payments to doctors were in fact made out of the funds available with him out of various additions/the cash refund received from supplier of medicines. Therefore, the assessee’s hypothetical request has to be rejected. 17. We have considered rival submissions of both sides. We agree in principle that unaccounted income can be a source for unaccounted payment and set-off is permissible. But, at the same time, it is the onus of assessee to explain the nexus or co-relation between unaccounted receipts Life care Hospital Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos. 42 & 41/Ind/2023 - AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 IT(SS)A Nos. 40 & 43/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 15 of 15 and unaccounted payments. In the present case, there is no detail or analysis being advanced by assessee to show that the impugned unaccounted salary payments were actually met from unaccounted incomes added by department or from cash refund received from supplier of medicines. Therefore, the assessee’s stand remains only a theoretical claim but unproved or unsubstantiated. In such a case, the benefit of set-off cannot be allowed to assessee. Therefore, the issue raised by assessee is rejected and accordingly these grounds are dismissed. 18. Resultantly, all these appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 02.02.2024. Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक /Dated : 02.02.2024 CPU/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore