Appeals partially allowed, cross-objections dismissed. Tribunal remits issues for fresh verification. CIT(A)'s decisions upheld.

The appeals of Revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal remitted specific issues back to the AO for fresh verification while upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on other matters.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals and cross-objections.
2. Addition on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Disallowance of expenditure due to non-submission of evidence.
4. Disallowance of Arogya Sree expenditure.
5. Disallowance of consultancy charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
6. Disallowance of depreciation.
7. Disallowance of cash payments under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
8. Disallowance of expenditure owing to non-submission of evidence for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
Both the Revenue and the assessee filed their appeals and cross-objections with delays. The Tribunal condoned the delays for both parties, being satisfied with the reasonable cause for the delays, thus admitting the appeals and cross-objections to be heard on merits.

2. Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment (Section 69):
The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 19,72,731/- as unexplained investment, noting discrepancies in the opening Written Down Value (WDV) of equipment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted this addition, observing that the increase in fixed assets occurred in the AY 2007-08 and was explained then. The Tribunal, however, found the explanation insufficient and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh verification of the sources of investment.

3. Disallowance of Expenditure Due to Non-Submission of Evidence:
The AO disallowed Rs. 20,46,562/- for inflated expenditures under consultation charges, cost of medicine, and salaries. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation and supporting documents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding consultancy charges but remitted the issues of cost of medicines and salaries back to the AO for verification, as these documents were not initially submitted to the AO.

4. Disallowance of Arogya Sree Expenditure:
The AO disallowed Rs. 11,58,999/- under chit discount, bank interest, and X-ray expenses. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation that these expenditures were adjusted against Arogya Sree receipts in the original return and properly disclosed in the revised return. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the information was already in the AO's file and did not constitute fresh evidence.

5. Disallowance of Consultancy Charges (Section 40(a)(ia)):
The AO added back Rs. 1,84,490/- due to non-deduction of TDS on consultancy charges. The CIT(A) enhanced the disallowance to Rs. 6,85,540/- after verifying that certain payments did not attract TDS. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the evidence submitted did not require further verification.

6. Disallowance of Depreciation:
For AY 2010-11, the AO disallowed Rs. 1,91,894/- for excess depreciation claimed. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance after verifying that the depreciation claimed was consistent with the original return. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), confirming that the claim was proper and valid.

7. Disallowance of Cash Payments (Section 40A(3)):
For AY 2010-11, the AO disallowed Rs. 1,15,600/- for cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit. The Tribunal's decision on this issue was not explicitly detailed in the provided text, implying that it followed the conclusions drawn in the earlier appeal for similar facts.

8. Disallowance of Expenditure Owing to Non-Submission of Evidence (AY 2010-11):
The AO disallowed Rs. 9,15,929/- for non-submission of evidence. The Tribunal's approach to this issue followed the same reasoning as in the earlier appeal, remitting back issues where necessary for verification and upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions where appropriate.

Conclusion:
Both the appeals of Revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and both cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal remitted specific issues back to the AO for fresh verification while upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on other matters. The order was pronounced in the open court on 21st March 2018.

---