Srinivasan Bhaskar Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, considered an appeal filed by an individual consultant doctor against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2014-15. At the outset, the Tribunal condoned a delay of 361 days in filing the appeal after finding sufficient cause for the delay.
The assessee had originally filed the return of income declaring professional income along with the tax audit report. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing following a search conducted at Apollo Hospitals. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment under Sections 143(3) read with 147 by making an addition of ₹17,10,700 towards alleged suppression of professional receipts. The addition was based on the statement of the hospital’s Manager (Operations), Ms. G. Subhadra, and data allegedly collected from the hospital, wherein the Assessing Officer estimated the consultation fees receivable by comparing the number of patients reflected in hospital records with the professional receipts disclosed by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the issue was already covered by earlier decisions of the Coordinate Benches in G. Ananthasubramaniam v. ITO and Dr. Sreenivasalu Reddy Ponnaluru v. ITO. It was contended that the addition had been made solely on the basis of the statement of Ms. G. Subhadra and estimated data collected by the Investigation Wing without any corroborative material. The assessee further submitted that despite repeated requests, neither the statements relied upon nor the material collected under Section 133(6) was furnished, no opportunity for cross-examination was granted, and the books of account, bank statements, Form 26AS, and a certificate issued by the Senior Vice-President (Finance) of Apollo Hospitals explaining that the outpatient database included several non-billed and non-charged patients had been produced before the authorities.
