Case Law Details
ITO Vs Dr. Sunitha Agarwal (ITAT Bangalore)
The advance received from patients cannot remain perpetually so and even after passage of 46 months, it has not been recognized as revenue. Hence the claim of the assessee that the receipts are capital in nature may not be entertained.
Revenue before us is alleging the genuineness of transaction pertaining to the advances received from patients to the extent of Rs. 1,64,63,000/-. The Ld.CIT(A) called for remand report during the first appellate proceedings as according to which the assessing officer made categorical observation that the advances received from patients cannot remain perpetually so even after passage of 46 months. The Ld.AO observed that assessee had not recognised the same as revenue and hence it was to be held as capital receipt in the hands of assessee. From the assessment order, it is verifiable that assessee had not filed confirmation from the patients from whom such advances were received. It is also noted that Ld.CIT(A) has not verified the genuineness of the transaction based on any evidences that was filed except for the reasoning that assessee has shown the advance received of Rs. 1.64 Crores to be revenue in subsequent Assessment Year.
We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition based on certain confirmation letters which has not been elaborated upon in the appellate order. We, therefore, direct the Ld.CIT(A) to once again carry out a detailed verification in respect of the various evidences that were filed. Accordingly, we set aside this issue back to Ld.CIT(A) for verification in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
