M/s.Alshifa hospital, Malappuram v. DCIT, Calicut

CO 13/COCH/2013 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1321923 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AADCA3810E
Bench Cochin
Appeal Number CO 13/COCH/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant M/s.Alshifa hospital, Malappuram
Respondent DCIT, Calicut
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 11-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 11-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 25-09-2013
Next Hearing Date 25-09-2013
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 26-07-2013
Judgment Text
1 ITA NO.317-319/COCH/2013 ITA NO.184-186/COCH/2013 CO NOS 12-14/COCH/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) I.T.A NO. 317 TO 319/COCH/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 2008-09 & 2009-10) DY.CIT CENT.CIR.1 VS M/S AL-SHIFA HOSPITAL PVT LTD CALICUT OOTY ROAD PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM PAN : AADCA3810E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A NO. 184 TO 186/COCH/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 2008-09 & 2009-10) & C.O. NOS 12 TO 14/COCH/2013 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 317 TO 319/COCH/2013) (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/S AL-SHIFA HOSPITAL PVT LTD VS DY.CIT CENT.CI R.1 OOTY ROAD PERINTHALMANNA CALICUT MALAPPURAM (APPELLANT / CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :SHRI TM SREEDHARAN LD. SR COUNSEL REVENUE BY : SHRI M. ANIL KUMAR C.I.T. SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA DATE OF HEARING : 25-09-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-10-2013 2 ITA NO.317-319/COCH/2013 ITA NO.184-186/COCH/2013 CO NOS 12-14/COCH/2013 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE HAVE FILED APPE ALS AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CROSS THREE OBJEC TIONS. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION WE HEARD ALL THE AP PEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDIT ION OF RS.1 77 02 382 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08; RS.2 82 56 033 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09; AND RS.2 26 09 772 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TOWARDS I.P. CREDIT. 3. SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION OF THE PATI ENTS IN THE HOSPITAL VARIOUS UTILITY BILLS GENERATED; BUT THE SAME WERE ACCOUNTED FOR ONLY AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE OF THE PATIENTS FROM THE HOSPITAL . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE BILLS GENERATED AT THE TIME OF ADMISS ION OF THE PATIENTS AND ALSO THE BILLS GENERATED AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE O F THE PATIENTS FROM THE HOSPITAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL UTIL ITY BILL WAS REFLECTED TWICE IN THE INDIVIDUAL BILLS ONCE AT THE TIME OF ADMISS ION AND THE OTHER AT THE 3 ITA NO.317-319/COCH/2013 ITA NO.184-186/COCH/2013 CO NOS 12-14/COCH/2013 TIME OF DISCHARGE. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL THERE WAS A DUPLICATION OF THE VERY SAME AMOUNT. REFERRING T O THE PAPER BOOK II FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PAGE NO.1 THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL SU BMITTED THAT THIS IS THE COPY OF THE BILL GENERATED AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE OF ONE OF THE PATIENTS SHRI UNNIKRISHNAN. AT COLUMN NO.5 THIS PATIENT WA S CHARGED RS.710 TOWARDS COLAR DOPPLER. THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY SAME PATIENT WAS CHARGED FOR LABORATORY FEES MEDICINES ETC. REFERRING TO PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK II THE LD.SE NIOR COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT ON 05-04-2006 A BILL WAS GENERATED FOR RS.710 TOWARDS COLAR DOPPLER. THIS BILL WAS GENERATED AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION OF THE PATIENT. REFERRING TO PAGE 4 THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT ON 0 5-04-2006 RS.40 220 WAS CHARGED FOR COLAR DOPPLER FROM SIX PATIENTS. A T PAGE 6 THE TOTAL AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM SHRI UNNIKRISHNAN AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE IS REFERRED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE FIGU RE FROM THE BILL WHICH WAS GENERATED AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION AND ALSO THE FIG URE FROM THE BILL WHICH WAS GENERATED AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL RS.710 CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR COLAR D OPPLER AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION AND REFERENCE TO THIS FIGURE IS ALSO REFE RRED TO IN THE BILL WHICH WAS GENERATED AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE OF THE PATIE NT. THEREFORE THIS RS.710 CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PATIENT VI Z. SHRI UNNIKRISHNAN HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ONLY ONCE I.E. EITHER AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION 4 ITA NO.317-319/COCH/2013 ITA NO.184-186/COCH/2013 CO NOS 12-14/COCH/2013 OF THE PATIENT OR AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE. ACCORD ING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE AMOUNT OF RS.710 ON THE BASIS OF THE BILL GENERATED AT THE TIME OF ADMISSIO N OF PATIENT AS WELL AS THE BILL WHICH WAS GENERATED AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE O F THE PATIENT. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL THIS IS A DOUBL E ADDITION WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHETHER T HE MATTER CAN BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIF ICATION THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY NOT VERIFY THE ENTIRE BILLS AND THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT GET ANY JUSTICE FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE KEPT PEN DING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND A REMAND REPORT MAY BE CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE SAMPLE BILLS. 4. ON THE CONTRARY SHRI M ANIL KUMAR THE LD.DR SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RECONCILIATION OF THE RE CEIPTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD.DR POINTED OUT THAT IF T HERE IS A DOUBLE ADDITION THEN IT NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. BUT WHETHER THERE I S A DOUBLE ADDITION OR NOT THAT HAS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE NO RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS FILED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ANY PARTICULAR PATIENTS CREDIT ACCO RDING TO THE LD.DR CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT BY KEEPING THE APPEALS PENDING BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL MAY 5 ITA NO.317-319/COCH/2013 ITA NO.184-186/COCH/2013 CO NOS 12-14/COCH/2013 NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) THE LD.DR POINTED OUT THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT F ILED ANY RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO IN-PATIENT CREDIT HE PRES UMES THAT THE ASSESSEE RECONCILED THE EXPENSES INCURRED. THEREFORE THE E XPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO DOUBLE ADDITION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE RECONCILED THE EXPENSES THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION THAT THE IN-PATIENT CREDITS HAVE ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED. THE LD.DR POINTED OUT THAT IN CASE OF ANY DOUBLE ADDITION IT NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED; BUT AT THE VERY SAME TIME THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. PRIMA FA CIE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GENERATED TWO BILLS ONE AT THE TIME O F ADMISSION OF THE PATIENT FOR UTILITIES AND ANOTHER AT THE TIME OF DI SCHARGE OF THE PATIENT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BILLS GENERATED AT T HE TIME OF ADMISSION FOR UTILITIES WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE DISCHARGE BILL O F THE PATIENT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AFT ER VERIFYING THE BILLS GENERATED AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION OF THE PATIENT A ND THE BILL GENERATED AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE FROM THE HOSPITAL AND THE TOT AL RECEIPT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE APPREHENDS THAT BY SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO 6 ITA NO.317-319/COCH/2013 ITA NO.184-186/COCH/2013 CO NOS 12-14/COCH/2013 THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION IT MAY NOT GET JUSTICE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS ALSO AN OFFICER EMPOWERED TO VERIFY THE BILLS AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREFORE IF THERE IS ANY SPE CIFIC ALLEGATION AGAINST THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO BRING THE SAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES IN THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE SERVICES OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER CAN NOT BE EXCLUDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO AN AUTHORI TY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL BEING A SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANNOT VERIFY EACH AND EVERY BILL UNLESS THE SAME IS VERIFIED BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY I.E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO IN-PATIENT CREDIT EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE VERI FIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE APPREHENDS THAT IT MAY NOT GET JUSTICE WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE ENTIRE B ILLS AND VOUCHERS THAT MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A FAIR MANNER WITHO UT ANY BIAS AND UNDUE INFLUENCE. IF ANY BIAS OR UNDUE INFLUENCE IS NOTIC ED THE MATTER WILL BE VIEWED VERY SERIOUSLY. 7 ITA NO.317-319/COCH/2013 ITA NO.184-186/COCH/2013 CO NOS 12-14/COCH/2013 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE ORDERS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH REGARD TO IN-PATIENT CREDIT IS SET ASIDE AND R EMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL VERIFY ALL THE BILLS GENERATED IN THE ASSESSEES PREMISES AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION OF THE PATIENT AND DISCHARGE THE TOTAL RECEIPT AND OTHER EXPENDITURE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE IN-PATIENT CREDITS IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CROSS OBJE CTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH OCTOBER 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN DT : 11 TH OCTOBER 2013 PK/- COPY TO: 1. M/S AL-SHIFA HOSPITAL PVT LTD OOTY ROAD PERINT HALMANNA MALAPPURAM 2. DY.CIT CENT.CIR.1 CALICUT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL KOCHI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-I 2 ND FLOOR SAN JUAN TOWERS OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD ERNAKULAM NORTH KOCHI-682 01 8 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH