TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 956
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d also works in Swarnamrutha Hospital, Tirupathi which is run by his wife Smt. S. Amruthavalli. Proceedings u/s. 153A were initiated in the case of Dr. S. Venkateswara Prasad, and appeals from AY. 2003-04 to 2006-07 are being considered in this batch. Eventhough assessee contested initiation of proceedings under 153A, the same are to be rejected as search and seizure operations were conducted in assessee's own case and proceedings are mandatory. The order of ld. CIT(A) on this is upheld. The grounds on that issue are accordingly rejected in all impugned years. AY. 2003-04: 4. In this assessment year, the only issue raised by the Assessing Officer (AO) is with reference to Short Term Capital Gain assessed in the hands of assessee of Rs. 13,30,053/-. The facts leading to addition are that assessee along with his wife has purchased two residential units at Tirupathi on 09-03-2000. This was given for development to M/s. Chaitanya Constructions, Tirupathi. Ratio between the land owners and the builder is 33.67. The total constructed area was 15,646 Sq. Ft. and assessee and his wife got 5,163 towards their share. Assessee's share of 2,582 Sq. Ft., was disclosed in the return for AY. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellant only on 12.07.2003 which is more than 3 years from the date of purchase of the said property. Hence, the property in question only is attracted to Long Term Capital Gains. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to compute Long Term Capital Gains in accordance to law. Hence, this ground of appeal is partly allowed". 5. As can be seen from the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A), there is no dispute with reference to the fact that agreement was entered on 02-10-2000. There is also finding that developer has completed the construction work and handed over flats to assessee and her husband on 12-07-2003, as seen from the completion letter furnished by the developers. Even the evidence and letting out the property also confirms that the property was handed over on 12-07-2003. Therefore, the Long Term Capital Gain was accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). What Ld. CIT(A) has missed that handing over on 12-07-2003 would result in capital gain in AY. 2004-05, not in AY. 2003-04 which is for the period up to 31-03- 2003 only. Having taken possession on 12-07-2003, assessee has correctly offered the capital gains in AY. 2004-05. Since the amount was wrongly brought to tax in AY.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al in the case of Smt. S. Amruthavalli also. Before the Ld. CIT(A), it was contended that there was first of all double addition of the same amount in both the assessee and assessee's wife and further so much of income on estimation does not arise, as there was no seized assets either cash or of jewellery from assessees. Ld. CIT(A), however, did not disturb the estimation of income but however, directed the AO to delete the double addition in the hands of assessee's wife. Therefore, assessee did not get any relief on the estimation of income in the impugned assessment years. Assessee is aggrieved on the above issue. 8. Referring to the seized material and the statements recorded from 20 patients, it was the contention of the Ld. Counsel that there is no basis for estimating the surgery cases at Rs. 18,000/- for surgery and further there is also no evidence that so many surgery cases were done by assessee. It was submitted that assessee being a Govt. employee, he could not have attended so many surgeries as estimated by AO i.e., more than one in a day whereas he also attends in other hospitals and offered the receipts. It was further submitted that as seen from one of the documents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble estimation of the AO cannot be faulted. Therefore, the bifurcation adopted by the AO in the respective years out of the total patients is however, upheld. 9.2 Coming to the issue of estimation of fee received in surgery cases and non-surgery cases, it seems the amounts are on higher side. AO estimated the addition in the hands of assessee at Rs. 55,53,750/- in AY. 2004-05, Rs. 52,59,650/- in AY. 2005-06 and Rs. 25,97,650/- in AY. 2006-07. These amounts could not have been received by assessee as there is no corresponding investments made out by assessee anywhere. Neither in the hospital nor in the personal wealth, there are investments. The cash identified on the date of search at around Rs. 7.5 Lakhs was not seized as it seems to be accounted cash. The jewellery found was also accepted and there are no additions towards unaccounted jewellery. There is also no case of any un-accounted wealth being brought to tax in assessee's hands, other than the so called estimation of receipts. The rate of estimation made does not support the AO's contentions as there is no corresponding accumulation of wealth in the hands of assessee or in the hands of the family members. Prima facie, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actor which is to be considered in this case is with reference to the proceedings U/s. 153C. Assessee is not searched as the search and seizure operations were conducted in the hands of assessee's husband. The only incriminating material which AO considered is with reference to inpatient register of the hospital, based on which receipts were estimated by the AO. Apart from that there was no incriminating material on any other issue. Since there is some incriminating material and as the AO was satisfied that in-patient register pertains to the hospital being run by assessee, we are of the opinion that proceedings U/s. 153C were validly initiated. Assessee is questioning that proceedings U/s. 153C were initiated without any satisfaction. Even though this ground was raised no evidence was placed by either party in order to examine this aspect. Therefore, the grounds are considered as not validly raised. However, while making the additions, the aspect that proceedings U/s. 153C were initiated and completed has been kept in mind, as any addition without any corresponding incriminating material may not be sustained. 13. Keeping the above in mind, while accepting that proceedings U/s. 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seems to be no basis in this assessee's case for estimating so much receipts as was done by AO. 14.1 We have asked the Ld. Counsel to furnish information about the hospital and support staff. The clarification filed by assessee's counsel is as under: "On the previous date of hearing, Hon'ble Tribunal directed the Appellants to file the details of (i) number of beds the hospital has, (ii) size of Hospital and (iii) receipt books maintained by the assessees. The Counsel for Appellants has verified with the Appellants on the above aspects and on instructions submits that the Hospital run by the Appellants has 16 beds. The Hospital is located in the ground and 1st Floor of the building and is housed in a plinth area of about 4.500 square feet. It is submitted that the Appellants have not maintained receipt books and therefore are not in a position to file the same. The Appellants employ 4-5 nurses and 5-6 housekeeping ward for the hospital. Further, in surgery cases, the Appellants take the help of outside specialist doctors for which they incur ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entions, we are of the opinion that AO's action cannot be appreciated. As far as earning of agricultural income is concerned, there is no doubt as AO himself admits agricultural income. The only issue is with reference to quantification. Assessee offered incomes whereas AO contends that it can not be that much. Having considered that assessee is having Mango Orchards on the land and nature of agricultural land, we are of the opinion that income offered is not unreasonable. It is to be noted that there is no evidence on record of any incriminating material with reference to the issue of agricultural income. As seen from assessee's returns, assessee owns substantial amount of agricultural land up to AY. 2005-06 and in that year part of the agricultural lands were sold by assessee. Assessee also reduced the agricultural income in those years. The details of agricultural income offered is as under: Asst. Year Agricultural Income (Rs.) 2002-03 40,000 2003-04 58,000 2004-05 52,000 2005-06 38,000 2006-07 33,500 2007-08 80,000 2008-09 80,000 17. As can be seen from the above, there is lot of variation of the agricultural income depending on the agricultural holding....