KANKE GENERAL HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, RANCHI

ITA 259/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi25 September 20266 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions. Regarding the addition on account of undisclosed investment in the building (issue 3), the assessee argued that the DVO's valuation using CPWD rates was incorrect for Ranchi, and PWD rates should have been applied, referencing the decisions in Gita Kumari Vs ACIT and Poonam Devi Vs ACIT. The Tribunal, following the Coordinate Bench's decision in ITA No. 21/Ran/2022, agreed that PWD rates should have been applied instead of CPWD rates. However, it noted that the CIT(A) had already examined this issue in detail and restricted the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order on this point and upheld it. Regarding the other additions sustained by the CIT(A) – ₹25,05,000 as suppressed professional receipts (issue 1) and ₹5,00,000 as bogus expenses (issue 2) – the assessee's counsel did not present any fresh evidence to support its claims that the suppressed receipts were accounted for or that the expenses were duly vouched. Consequently, these additions sustained by the CIT(A) were also upheld. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kanke General Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited, is appealing against the order of the CIT(A), Patna-3, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal stems from additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) following a survey under Section 133A. During the survey, a discrepancy in medical store stock valuation was noted, leading to an excess stock of ₹14,98,628, which the assessee voluntarily offered for taxation. The AO also identified a difference in investment in assets and referred the property valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The AO made additions for suppressed receipts (₹25,05,000), bogus expenses (₹5,00,000), and undisclosed investment in building (₹3,04,56,985). The CIT(A) deleted the stock addition, confirmed the suppressed receipts and bogus expenses, and restricted the building investment addition to ₹53,84,728.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer for treating ₹25,05,000/- as suppressed professional receipts, turning on Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer for treating ₹5,00,000/- as bogus expense, turning on Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in treating ₹53,84,728/- as undisclosed investment in the building, turning on Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: For issue 3, the assessee argued that the DVO incorrectly applied CPWD rates for property valuation in Ranchi and that PWD rates should have been used, citing the cases of Gita Kumari Vs ACIT (ITA No. 21/Ran/2022) and Poonam Devi Vs ACIT (ITA No. 96/Ran/2013). Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through the ld. Sr. DR, supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144A,Section 69A,Section 69B,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY & SMT. RAJANI GUDURI

For Appellant: Shri D.V. Patty, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR
Hearing: 27/08/2026Pronounced: 25/09/2026

PER: BENCH

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, Patna dated 30/05/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

For that the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer for treating ₹ 25,05,000/- as suppressed professional receipts.

2.

For that the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer for treating ₹ 5,00,000/- as bogus expense.

3.

For that the learned CIT(A) erred in treating ₹ 53,84,728/- as undisclosed investment in th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →