N.S.Saini, Member - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income -Tax (Appeals) -XX, Ahmedabad dated 15.12.2010.
(2.) THE assessee has taken the following grounds of the appeal : "1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by confirming the estimated and ad hoc addition of Rs. 5,05,535/ - in the indoor fees income has made by the AO. 2. Your appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal." The brief facts of the case are that the AO on verification of books of accounts of the assessee noted the following discrepancies: "1. Firstly, the statement given by Mr. Thakkar during the cross examination is grossly baseless, without any evidences, far away from facts, differing figures grossly, and contradictory from the original statement given by him for A.O.'s order, which is not acceptable at all. 2. Further out hundreds of cases treated by me during the year under consideration, A SINGLE PERSON, WHO IS PREJUDICED AND FILED CIVIL CASE against me, cannot be relied upon only for such huge addition on simple equation basis for whole year, and that too having no any evidence produced by him. 3. There is neither any proof of fees alleged to be paid by Mr. Thakkar, has produced at the time of original hearing/assessment nor during my cross examination on 14 -12 -2009. Orally telling -saying cannot be accepted at all. Whereas, I have produced a copy of Fees Receipt ( -No. 3535 dated 15 -01 -1997) for fees charged by me from him, Indoor fees Register - where the same is recorded, Indoor Case Papers file, books of accounts, etc. to you.
(3.) FURTHERMORE , while going through the cross examination of Mr. Thakkar, oathed in your respected presence on 14 -12 -2009, the following material discrepancies are eminent, which are far away from the facts, a. As per Accessing Officer's original assessment order dated 31 -03 -2002, vide para (2)(ii) on page 5 states that Mr. Thakkar has paid Rs. 400 for indoor fees totally on 23 -01 -1997, whereas, during the cross examination he has replied that he has paid Rs. 1,000/ - on 23 -01 -1997, which absolutely contradicts his own sayings (i.e. Rs. 400 v. Rs. 1,000). Accordingly, his both statements are contradictory, baseless and not acceptable.. b. Again during the cross examination on 14 -12 -2009, he says that he paid Rs. 600/ - on 25 -01 -1997, which he has never stated in his original statement as per A.O.'s Order. Meaning thereby he is grossly manipulating his sayings to harass me as he has filed Civil Suit against me. c. Again, during the cross examination, he says that he paid Rs. 1,000/ - lumpsum breakup wise Rs. 200 for ECT + Rs. 125 room charges + Rs. 80 visit charges for 2 days, which do not tally the figure of Rs. 1,000 paid? It is no where tradition of collecting lump sum amount at the time of discharge. It is exact and final charges to be paid at the time of discharge of patient. Accordingly, his both statement are contradictory, baseless and not acceptable. d. Further, during the cross examination Mr. Thakkar said that on 15 -01 -1997, 22 -01 -1997 and on 25 -01 -1997 he has paid fees at reception counter to person other than me. While as per my tradition since beginning of my hospital, I collect all charges directly from patient, and not being collected at reception. Which again, falsify his statement grossly. Thus, at every stage of his statements he has manipulated the fact against me for harassment." 4. MOREOVER , It is my tradition to collect charges at the time of discharge only, while in this case as the patient died in the hospital, I didn't collect any charges from Mr. Thakkar, considering humanity and sorrow feeling towards them. Under the above situation, looking to the facts and evidence on my part and erroneous/grossly farcifying statement of Mr. Thakkar, I earnestly request you Sir, not to accept or consider his saying - statement at all and adjudicate me by dropping the proposed addition into and oblige." 5. The assessee's above reply is carefully considered. As per the Hon. ITAT's direction, sufficient opportunity has been given to the assessee by taking the cross examines with Shri Amrutlal J. Thakkar. Shri Amrutlal J. Thakkar in his reply dated 14.12.2009 once again confirmed that the assessee has received indoor fees of Rs. 400/ - in the case of his daughter, Daxaben A Thakkar on 23.01.1997. Further, Shri Amrutlal J. Thakkar stated in question 9 in his reply that he has given a lump sum amount of Rs. 400/ - to the Dr. Radheshyam Agrawal on 23.01.97 at 5.00 P.M. as indoor fees charges i.e. Rs. 200/ - for ECT charge, Rs. 125/ - for room charge and Rs. 80/ - visit charge. Shri Amrutlal J. Thakkar was already stated in his statement given on 09.03.2000 that he has paid as indoor fees charges i.e. Rs. 200/ - for ECT charge, Rs. 125/ - for room charge and Rs. 80/ - visit charge. Hence, there is no contradictory statement found in reply given by the Shri Amrutlal Thakkar on 14.12.2009. 5.1 Further on perusing of records, it is noticed that the above charges have not been recorded in the books of account or indoor records. However, the assessee once again failed to do so. 5.2 On verification of books of accounts the following discrepancy once Again found. "A. He has maintained indoor patient register, and indoor fee receipt books but neither complete addresses of patients nor the information relating to diagnosis, or nature of treatment given to each patient is mentioned therein. B. The dates of admission to the hospital and discharged from the hospital is not exactly written. C. No details/break up of visit fee, room chares, or other charges has been given separately in the said indoor fee register. D. No separate ward wise occupation/room wise accommodation register in respect of indoor patients have been maintained by the assessee, no any appointment dairy for OPD or indoor patients is maintained or produced. E. In his indoor register, names of the patients only have been mentioned and in most of the cases, no any surnames or complete addresses have been given. Thus, the indoor fee patient's fee disclosed by him is not verifiable from patients and so cannot be relied upon and be accepted and hence his books of accounts and book results are proposed to be once again rejected u/s. 145(2) of the Act, his indoor income of Rs. 5,05,535/ - is proposed to be estimated as per order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2000." 5.3 In view of the above facts and discussions, the assessee's contention is not accepted and as the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim, Rs. 5,05,535/ - is added back to the income of the assessee on the lines as mentioned in the order passed in para -2 as indoor fee income on 31.03.2000 u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act by the then A.O. ";