TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spitals and filed his Return of Income for the Assessment year 2014-15 on 20.09.2014 vide acknowledgement No. 360180121200914 along with Tax Audit Reports. 2. On the basis of Search in a third party premises, the appellant case was re-opened, Notice u/s. 148 issued and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the act on 29. 12. 2019 by way of additions of Rs. 17,10,700/- In the head of Income from Profession. These additions were made purely on the basis of unverified statements gathered by the Investigation wing of IT Dept. and the same being not put any verification by the Ld.AO. 3. Aggrieved by the arbitrary proceedings of the Ld.AO, the appellant has steps in to the office of the First appellate authority and the CIT (appeals) has dismissed the same on 30.12.2025 without touching the merits of the case. The Ld. CIT (appeals) failed to see that these additions were made only on the basis of a third party information and not from my own books of accounts, which was submitted before the Ld. Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to note that the Ld. AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the act, based on statement of one Ms. Subhadr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of G. Anantha subramaniam Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.2505/Chny/2024 dated 15.01.2025, wherein the Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Dr. Sreenivasalu Reddy Ponnaluru Vs. ITO in ITA Nos.673 to 678/Chny/2022 dated 20.09.2022. 5.1 The ld.AR submitted that the additions in the present case have also 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. It was further submitted that despite repeated requests, neither the statements relied upon nor the material collected u/s. 133(6) was furnished to the assessee. No opportunity of cross-examination was afforded. The assessee had produced the books of account, bank statements, Form 26AS and a certificate issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision has subsequently been followed by another Coordinate Bench in the case of G. Anantha subramaniam Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITA No.2505/Chny/2024 dated 15.01.2025), wherein the Tribunal again held that once the statement of Ms. G. Subhadra had already been held to possess no evidentiary value for making additions in the hands of consultant doctors, similar additions based solely on such statement could not survive. The Coordinate Bench in the case of G. Anantha subramaniam Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITA No.2505/Chny/2024 dated 15.01.2025) held as under: 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have benefit of going through the order of the co-ordinate bench referred supra. We find that when impugned order dated 29.07.2024 was passed, the order of the co-ordinate bench dated 20.09.2022 in the case of Dr. Sreenivasalu Reddy Ponnaluru[ITA Nos.673-678/Chny/2022]was very much available with the department/revenue. We are also surprised of the fact that why the ld. CIT(A) did not enquire about status and fate of other searched persons. In this case, while reopening the assessment, revenue relied upon the information and statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh the books of accounts of Apollo hospitals. If not why? Ans: The fees collected by the employed doctors of Apollo hospitals (i.e.) 7 doctors in the nephrology department are booked in the accounts of Apollo hospitals. The fees collected by the remaining doctors are not booked in our accounts. The nonemployee doctors have their discretion to fix their fees. They pay monthly rent of Rs. 13,800 p.m. presently. In case of part-time Doctors, the rent is charged on an hourly basis. The fees charged by the non-employee doctors are not booked in the accounts of Apollo hospitals even before I took over. I am continuing the same procedure. Dr. Satyabhama, Director of Medical Services only has the final say regarding the fees of non-employee doctors and whether or not to book the same in the accounts of Apollo hospitals. Q6 Please provide the details of consultation fees received by the doctors for the consultations to patients in Apollo from 01-04-2009 to September 2012? Ans: As per the statement of Mrs. Sashikala, my predecessor, the for OPD consultation fees was between Rs. 450-500. There is no possibility for any doctor to charge above this rate but there is no physical eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as under: .................................................................................... .................................................................................... Based on above tabulation, it could not be accepted that the assessee would attempt to conceal income as estimated by Ld. AO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Odeon Builders (P) Ltd (2019) 110 Taxmann.com 64 (SC) has held that no addition can be made on the basis of third-party information gathered by the Investigation Wing of the Department. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned additions are not sustainable in law and therefore, we delete the impugned additions for all the years. Though the assessee has taken grounds challenging the validity of assessment proceedings also, however, these grounds have not been urged during hearing before us. Accordingly, no findings have been rendered on these grounds''. 6. In the co-ordinate bench order referred supra, the third party statement of the Ms. G. Subhadra has been diluted and given no credence. Hence, respectfully, following the order of the co-ordinate bench dated 20.09.202....