Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Jodhpur)
The apple of discord in this case cash deposited by the assessee in the bank account of specified bank notes in the form of 500 and 1000 of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- whether the same is unexplained money or not. It is not under dispute that the assessee has considered the impugned amount received as cash receipts and there is no dispute on that receipt already offered by the assessee. The Bench also noted that the assessee is running of pharmacy unit and the government has released by the adversary that specified bank notes to this pharmacy units on account of purchase of medicines is permitted and other items on medical treatment. The Bench also noted that the assessee has furnished the details of bills raised along with identity of the patient who submitted SBNs. The details is supported in the form of PAN and Aadhar ID and the same is not under dispute. The Bench noted from the records that the assessee has already offered the said receipts in the accounts maintained by the assessee. The Bench also noted that the cash receipts in the form in the SBNs are not unusual as compared to the last years. The cash receipt for the similar period on comparison not reported any unusual transaction and no such allegation made by the lower authority doubting the cash receipt in the ordinary course of services rendered by the assessee. Even the identity and the treatment given to the patient is duly recorded and there is no adverse observation on this in the regular books of account of the assessee. Revenue cannot tax twice the same receipts, as in the regular books of account this cash receipt is duly recorded as receipt. Based on these observations of the facts we are of the considered view that the amount deposited in the bank account though SBNs addition cannot be sustained also from the record that the books of account of the assessee are maintained and audited in the regular course of profession and in the absence of any default on this books addition is not sustainable. The Bench also noted that the ld. AO did not bring on record any concrete and conclusive evidence of back dating of entries of cash receipts or bogus receipt and not disclosing of the identity and treatment so offered. The Bench also noted that the books of account are regularly audited under the Company Act under the Income Tax Act. There is no adverse observation in the audit report and this audited of books of account had not been rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the assessee has already discharged this burden and proved in the cash deposited in the bank account in the form of demonetization currency was received and explained the cash receipt for which the same has already been accepted by the Revenue while finalizing the assessment of books of account without mentioning any default and the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act Therefore, we see no reason to pry in the detailed findings recording by the ld. CIT(A). In the light of these observation ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 168/Jodh/2022 dismissed.
