TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t years 2013-14 & 2014-15. The facts related to passing order under section 154 in both the years are common, therefore, with the consent of parties, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, facts in assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No.355/SRT/2023 is treated as "lead" case. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal: - "1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,28,015/- made on the ground of suppression of professional receipts from the patients under OPD category. 2) The appellant craves, leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete, change or vary one or more....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PD" to the extent of 30% thereby granted part relief. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submission of learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee and learned Senior-Departmental Representative (ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. The Ld.AR for the assessee submits that while making the addition on account of "Zero Patient- OPD" in the assessment order, no show cause notice for proposing such addition was issued by the Assessing Officer. The assessee in the statement of fact, clearly and categorically raised such issue. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits copy of statement of fact filed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Revenue submits that addition made by Assessing Officer was, in fact, based on seized material, which is the print out extracted from computer data, that assessee was not maintained proper record of outdoor patient (OPD). The entry in the computers date were not in a systematic manner or date-wise. By pointing out such discrepancies on page-19 of paper book, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that entries on 9th May 2012, was shown earlier i.e., date of 8th May, 2012. And on the basis of such discrepancies, the Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that addition of OPD patient based on seized material. So far objection with regards to non-issuance of show cause notice on the subject addition, the ld. Sr- DR for the Revenue submits that Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of electronic record. As obtaining a certificate under section 65B(4), is not a mere formality, but it is mandatory for reliance of such electronic evidence. The Assessing Officer is relying on such electronic record without obtaining a certificate under section 65B(4). To support his view, Ld. AR for the assessee relied on Hon'ble Apex Court in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Others 2014 (3) ECS (1) (SC) and in the case of Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Vs State of Punjab (2022 Live Law (SC) 461). The ld AR for the assessee also relied on the Investigation Manual about digital evidence circulated by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 7. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of lower authoriti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is extracted below; "18. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that at the time of framing assessment the assessing officer made additions by taking view that on analysis of computer disc, during the search action, it was noted that many patients were operated but amounts paid by them were not accounted and such payments were referred as "Zero Receipt Patients-IPD". The Assessing Officer identified one of the patient, Prabhaben B Bhalala. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6). The assessing officer recorded that it was also proved on the inquires under section 133(6). We find that the information gathered by assessing officer was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 30% of alleged suppressed receipt by taking view that only profit element of reasonable basis should be taxed. 20. We noted that the Assessing Officer has granted concession of two patients in respect of other hospitals for treatment of free patients, however, no such concession was allowed in case of assessee hospital. It is a common factor that a privately managed hospital has to treat second category of patients as free-of-cost, which may include relatives of doctors, para-medical staffs, close relatives or family friends etc., During the hearing, we also find that certain patients which were closely related with the partners of assessee-hospital. Thus, in view of aforesaid factual discussion, we find that the Assessing Officer has m....