DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. SIBIA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., BATHINDA

(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18) DCIT-Central Circle -1 M/s Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Ludhiana-141001 बनाम/ Vs. 3020 Street No 8 Ajit Road, Bhatinda 151001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAHCS-8616-A (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Vinay Bahl (CA) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 03-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid cross-appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [CIT(A)] dated 26-04-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) of the Act on 18-11-2019. The sole issue that falls for our consideration is addition of Rs.391.47 Lacs as made by Ld. AO in the assessment order. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeals are adjudicated as under. Assessment Proceedings 2.1 Pursuant to survey action u/s 133A on assessee on 06-10-2017, impugned assessment was framed. The assessee declared income of Rs.72.90 Lacs on 27-10-2017 which was subjected to scrutiny assessment proceedings. During survey,certain documents were impounded marked as Annexure-26 which contained monthly sheets giving total number of OPD and IPD patients treated at the hospital. As per these sheets, total 50538 OPD patients and 11358 IPD patients were treated at the hospital. The monthly patients count has been tabulated in the assessment order. However, the regular books reflected 15160 numbers of OPD patients from June, 2016 to March,2017 and no data of IPD patients was available. The assessee was accordingly required to explain the discrepancies. 2.2 The assessee submitted requisite details as per which totalOPD patients and IPD patients as per books were 13147 and 3420 respectively.Regardingdifference in number of patients, the assessee submitted that the impounded list was only an estimated list and it was prepared to showhigher number of patients for empanelment for various Central/ State Govt. Department. However, the said submissions did not found favor with Ld. AO who held that the assessee failed to rebut the presumption of undisclosed receipts as contained in these sheets. The books of the assessee were finally rejected u/s 145(3) and the actual receipts were determined on the basis of impounded document. The discrepancy thus quantified by Ld. AO was as under: - Particulars OPD Patients IPD Patients As per Impounded Document 50538 11358 As per Regular Books 13147 3420 Difference 37391 7938 Average Receiptsper patient as shown Rs.158/- 4276/- by the assessee in regular books Rate adopted by Ld. AO Rs.150/- Rs.4250/- The undisclosed receipts were thus estimated at Rs.391.47 Lacs and added to the income of the assessee Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The assessee’s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings wherein Ld. AO justified the impugned addition and rejected various contentions of the assessee. A notice u/s 133(6) was sent to Shri Vivek Sharma of Allengers Infotech, Chandigarh who had developed the software being used by the assessee from where these sheets were extracted. The auditor, Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg mentioned in the Tax Audit Report that the complete records were not maintained by the assessee and the books were not reliable. The assessee, on the other hand, contended that out of 50538 visits in the OPD, chargeable visits were only 12642 which was shown in blue colour. Empaneled patients counting to 1066 were shown in green color, IPD revisits counting to 4467 were shown in orange colour and OPD revisions were 33303 as shown in white colour. The complete analysis of the software was enclosed in the pen drive. It was also stated that the data generated in the software was not correct and it had some technical issue in generation of reports of more than one month. If the responsewas for one month, the date captured was correct. However, if the report was generated for more than one month, the software would capture incorrect information. Further, all the visits would not be charged. First visit is charged and subsequent visits are neither charged or charged at later rates. Also, some OPD patients need to be admitted for treatment and they become IPD patients. Thus, there would be duplicity for these cases. The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para 5.1.3 onwards. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A), considering all the aspects, held that the working made by Ld. AO on the basis of software was not correct. It was stated by software provider that the report of first month would give correct picture and capture correct data. It would, therefore. be reasonable to work out receipts on the basis of first months of these reports. The average OPD patients per year by considering figures of January and April was computed as 19332 patients whereas similar figure for IPD patients was computed to be 4560 patients. Applying rates of Rs.150/- and Rs.4250/- respectively, the receipts were worked out to be Rs.222.79 Lacs. A further benefit of 10% was given and gross receipts were reduced to Rs.200.51 Lacs as against receipts of Rs.167.04 Lacs as show by the assessee. Accordingly, addition of Rs.33.47 Lacs was confirmed and the appeal was partly allowed which has led to cross- appeals before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. It could be seen that the assessee was subjected to survey u/s 133A on 06-10-2017 wherein certain documents were impounded which were marked as Annexure-26. The documents contain monthly sheets giving total number of OPD and IPD patients. The Ld. AO found discrepancy in the number shown in these sheets as generated by the software being used by the assessee and the figures as reported by the assessee in its regular books of accounts. The same has led to impugned additions in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has taken average of figures for January and April and worked out patients treated by the assessee hospital during the whole of the year. In the process, average rate as shown by the assessee in the regular books has been applied to confirm the impugned additions in the hands of the assessee. The summary of monthly patients counts has been placed on Page Nos.96 to 97 of the paper-book. Upon due consideration of material facts, we concur that the whole basis of impugned addition is sheets as generated from the software being used by the assessee. It could prima-facie be seen that the reports being generated from the software was not giving correct data. On this fact, it could be concluded that the analysis of Ld. AO and whole basis of addition would be based on incorrect premise. It is the contention of the assessee that out of 50538 visits in the OPD, chargeable visits were only 12642 which was shown in blue colour. Empaneled patients counting to 1066 were shown in green color, IPD revisits counting to 4467 were shown in orange colour and OPD revisions were 33303 as shown in white colour. The complete analysis of the software was enclosed in the pen drive. This analysis would be vital and have direct bearing on the impugned additions. The Ld. AO has not factored in any of these submissions which is the grievance of the assessee. On these facts, we deem it fit to set aside the orders of lower authorities and restore the assessment back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo assessment by undertaking correct analysis of the impounded data. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case forthwith. All the issues are kept open.