The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5278 (Chen-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 143(3)

Assessee had included amount received from Apollo Hospital group in his return of income filed for the relevant assessment year, including concerned assessment year and therefore, making ad hoc addition on the basis of information received from third party source on the pretext that assessee had received consultation charges in cash amounts to double taxation, which was incorrect.

Assessment - Addition to income - Addition on account of unaccounted consultation charges -

AO made additions towards income received from Apollo Hospital Group, Chennai on the basis of information received from PCIT, Central Circle, Chennai, as per which assessee had received consultation charges @ Rs. 500 per outpatient and for the year under consideration, he has attended 2574 outpatients which worked out to Rs. 12,87,000 and same had not been accounted for in books of account of assessee. Assessee contended that amount from Apollo Hospital Group, Chennai, had been received through cheque and said payment had been subjected to TDS under provisions of section 194J and further same had been included in his gross receipts reported for the year in income-tax returns filed for relevant assessment years for which assessee had filed necessary agreement between parties, bank statements and Form 26AS. Assessee further claimed that as per agreement between the parties, the principal, M/s. Apollo Hospital Group, Chennai had maintained necessary records required to be maintained under rule 6F containing particulars of patients and amount charged and said amount had been directly collected by Apollo Hospital group, Chennai from patients. Held: Assessee had entered into agreement with Apollo Hospital Group, Chennai and as per which Apollo Hospital Group directly collected consultancy charges from outpatients and after deducting 15% of the fees collected from patients, balance amount had been paid to assessee. Further, said payment had been made through banking channel after deducting applicable TDS under section 194J. Further, assessee had included amount received from Apollo Hospital Group, Chennai in his return of income for the year and also claimed TDS deducted by the Principal in his return of income. All these records were part of paper book filed by assessee. Therefore, prima facie, it appeared that assessee had included amount received from Apollo Hospital Group in his return of income filed for the relevant assessment year including concerned assessment year and therefore, making ad hoc addition on the basis of information received from third party source on the pretext that assessee had received consultation charges in cash amounts to double taxation, which was incorrect.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2012-13 to 2016-17



IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com