THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CIMS HOSPITAL (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS CARE CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANT P.LTD.), AHMEDABAD

Since the entire group of appeals and the cross objections relate to the same assessee circumventing the identical issue, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by common order.

The brief facts leading to the case is this that a search was carried out under Section 132 of the Act in the Heart Care group of cases on 21.08.2008. The said Heart Care group consisted of Cardiologists and Cardiac Surgeons who were working under the concept of group practice; the main persons whereof are as follows: Cardiologists (1) Dr. Keyur Parikh (2) Dr. Milan Chag (3) Dr. Urmil Shah (4) Dr. Hemant Baxi (5) Dr. Anish Chandrana (6) Dr. Ajay Naik (7) Dr. Satya Gupta Cardiac Surgeon (1) Dr. Anil Jain (2) Dr. S. N. Mallya (3) Dr. Naman Shastri (4) Dr. Vishal Gupta (5) Dr. Chirag Mehta (6) Dr. Dhiren Shah (7) Dr. Bharat Trivedi 4. The Cardiologists and Cardiac Surgeon group decided to start hospital project for which land was identified near Sola, Ahmedabad and further decided to purchase the said land in the name of Care Cardiovascular Consultants Private Ltd. (in short CCCP L) now known as ITA No.305 /Ahd/2014 & C.O. No. 132/A/14 & CO No.133/Ahd/2014 Asst. Years –2007-08 & 2008-09 - 4 - CIMS Hospital Pvt. Ltd. In order to meet land cost and other expenses of the project, the capital was to be brought by the participating doctors. The total cost of the project was estimated at Rs. 50 crores to 52 crores. However, subsequently differences arose between the Cardiologist and the Cardiac Surgeon after the purchase of the land and the Cardiac Surgeon group separated and the following new doctors were introducing the group: (i) Dr. Gunvant Patel (ii) Dr. P. S. Iyengar (iii) Dr. Joyal Shah (iv) Dr. Mihir Tanna

Initially the assessment under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) was passed on 29.12.2010 at an assessed income of Rs. 13,45,407/-. However, Notice under Section 148 was issued on 15.11.2011 and return in response to the said notice was filed on 15.12.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 13,45,407/-. It is relevant to mention that assessment proceedings were completed in various cases of Heart Care Group wherein the Assessing Officer had held that for the purchase of land by CCCPL for the purpose of construction of the hospital, besides the cheque payment of Rs.2.50 crores, the Cardiologist and Cardiac Surgeon group paid a total cash of Rs.15.07 crores approximately. According to the Revenue the surgeon group had admitted the payments made in cash and declared the same in the returns filed. Based on various documents seized additions were made in the case of the Cardiologist Group.

Being an aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the addition made by the Ld. AO the cardiologist group filed appeals before the First Appellate /Ahd/2014 & C.O. No. 132/A/14 & CO No.133/Ahd/2014 Asst. Years –2007-08 & 2008-09 - 5 - Authority who in turn upheld the addition upon deciding the issue as follows: “In view of the above mentioned discussion, I have no doubt in my mind to hold that beside the cheque amount of Rs.2.50 crores, cash of Rs.15.07 crores was paid for the purchase of land from the seven private limited companies namely Matrand Estate Pvt. Ltd; Matang Properties Pvt. Ltd.; Madhuj Realty Pvt. Ltd.; Medhbhuti Complex Pvt. Ltd; Madhumati Realty Pvt. Ltd.; Tirth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Maitrik Buildcon Pvt Ltd.”

However, such plea of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Ld. AO and relying upon several judgments passed by different Judicial Forum the Ld. AO rejected the objection raised by the assessee.

Consequently notice under Section 143(2) dated 05.10.2012 followed by notice under Section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on the same date. The assessee was directed to show cause as to why the amount of cash payment of Rs.2,17,00,000/-should not be added to its income as unaccounted investment in the land as these transactions are not reflected in the books of accounts of the company. Considering various submissions made by the appellant the Ld. AO completed the assessment under Section /Ahd/2014 & C.O. No. 132/A/14 & CO No.133/Ahd/2014 Asst. Years –2007-08 & 2008-09 - 8 - 143(3) read with section 147 on 08.03.20 13 by making addition of Rs.3,12,96,000 /-with the following observation : “5.5.2 This document has been found and seized from the premises of CCCPL. This gives the details of payments by the doctors for hospital project up to 17/10/2007. As per this page cash of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 2 Lacs was received by CCCPL from Keyur Parikh on 1/10/2006 and 15/10/2006 respectively. Thereafter, certain payments are shown as made to. Savlas, Chavdas, Hare Krishna Developers and Shaligram Buildcon Private Limited. This means that Dr Keyur Parikh had issued the cheques in the name of the above mentioned parties and handed over the same to the company CCCPL. Further on 13/6/2007 cash of Rs. 24 Lacs and Rs. 60 lakh has been shown as received from Dr Keyur Parikh, In the books of accounts, Dr Keyur Parikh has shown loans and advances to Dr Paras Doshi of Rs. 14 Lacs and Rupal Doshi of Rs. 10 Lacs ( both junior doctors attached to Dr Keyur Parikh ). Similarly against the entry of Rs. 60 lakh, Dr Keyur Parikh has shown investment in the shares of Akaash Ceramics Private Limited of Rs. 60 Lacs. The amount of Rs. 24 Lacs and 60 Lacs are still shown as receivable by Dr Keyur Parikh from these parties viz, Dr Paras Doshi/ Rupal Doshi and Akaash Ceramics Private Limited respectively. In the seized document it is categorically written that cash has been received by CCCPL from Dr Keyur Parikh. Therefore, based on the seized material found from the premises of the company CCCPL, it can be concluded that in cases where amount is shown as received in cash from a particular Doctor, then, that amount is considered to have been paid in cash to the company CCCPL by the said doctor and the onus is on the doctor to prove the source of the same. In case cheque has been shown as received by CCCPL from the particular doctor, then the onus lies on the company to explain the source of such cash payment given for the purchase of land. 5.6 On the basis of the above premise it is seen that the have either paid cash doctors have paid cash or the cheque amount does not match with the payment shown by them 5.6.1. In the case of Dr. Keyur Parih a total amount of Rs. 552,96,000/- has been given out of which cash amount of Rs.1 lakh received on 1/10/2006, Rs. 2 lacs received on 15/10/2006, Rs. 24 lakh and Rs. 60 Lacs on 13/6/2007 by the company CCCPL. Similarly, the amount of Rs. 1 lakh received on 12/10/2007 and Rs. 45 Lacs received on 31/10/2007 by the company CCCPL from Dr Keyur Parikh in respect of these two amounts does not match with the cheques amount shown by Dr Keyur Parikh. Hence, in these cases, the cash payment has been considered in the case of doctors. In respect of the remaining amount of Rs.4,19,96,000 (Rs.552,96,000/- - 1,33,00,000 ), the same is considered as the unexplained investment of the company CCCPL. Out of the total payment of Rs. 4.19,96,000 the amounts of Rs. 312,96,000 are pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 as it is evident that the payments have been made in F.Y 2006-07 and Rs. 1,07,00,000/- pertains to assessment year 2008- 09. (Addition 3,12,96,000/-) In the case of Dr Milan Chag, the entries in the books of accounts is as under: /Ahd/2014 & C.O. No. 132/A/14 & CO No.133/Ahd/2014 Asst. Years –2007-08 & 2008-09 - 9 - Dr. Milan 1/3/2007 2,500,000 Laljibhai Savla Chag 4/11/2007 7,500,000 Shaligram buildcom P L 12/28/2007 12,50,000 Aakash Ceramics P.L. Sub Total 11,250,000 On verification, it was found that in the seized material the first two cheques of Rs. 25 Lacs and Rs. 75 Lacs are shown as issued in favour of Laljibhai Savla and Shaligram Buildcon Private Limited respectively. In the books of Dr. Milan Chag share application money of Akaash Ceramics Private Limited of Rs.13 Lacs as on 11/12/2007 is reflected whereas the company CCCPL has received cash of Rs. 12.50 Lacs on 28/12/2007 hence, the remaining amount of Rs. 1 crore is considered as unexplained investment by CCCPL. Further, since the amount of Rs. 25 lakh has been shown as paid on 3/1/2007, therefore, this amount has been considered as unexplained investment in the hands of CCCPL in assessment year 2007-08 and Rs. 75 Lacs has been considered as unexplained investment in assessment year 2008-09. (Addition Rs. 25,00,000/-) (ii) 5.6.3. In the case of Dr Anish. Chandarana the following amounts have been shown as received by CCCPL from him:

The said addition was challenged before the First Appellate Authority by the Respondent herein whereupon the same was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us.

At the time of hearing of the matter the Revenue supported the order passed by the Ld. AO. It was argued by the Ld. DR that cash payment in purchasing the property in question has been admitted by other doctors namely Dr. Anil Jain, Dr. Chirag B Meta, Dr. Naman Shastri, Dr. Vishal M /Ahd/2014 & C.O. No. 132/A/14 & CO No.133/Ahd/2014 Asst. Years –2007-08 & 2008-09 - 12 - Gupta , Dr. Bharat R Teivedi and Dr. Srinivas Mallya in their statement recorded on 13.04.2010 under Section 131 of the Act. All the doctors mainly the surgeons had admitted payment of cash and cheque in the ratio of 85:15 for the purchase of land. In fact the crux of the submission made by the Ld. DR is this that the addition made by the Ld. AO since on the basis of the statement made by this doctors admitting cash payment for the purchase of the land in question the deletion of addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) is totally arbitrary, bad and liable to be set aside. He, therefore, relies upon the order passed by the Ld. AO.

We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties, and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record.

It appears that while deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO the Ld. CIT(A) observed as follows: “6. AO also made addition of Rs. 5,06,53,799/- with the following observation: 6.3. The assessee company has furnished comments of Dr. Keyur Parikh, promoter of the company on the statements recorded during the course of cross examination. The comments of Dr. Keyur Parikh on the cross-examination are reproduced as under: "Comments on statements recorded in cross examination of surgeons On page no 26 of the assessment order in para 4.5 the learned assessing officer has relied upon the statements of the doctors of the surgeon group recorded u/s 131 of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings. During the course of cross examination of Dr. Vishal M Gupta and Dr. Bharat R Trivedi it is found that the statement recorded u/s 131 and relied upon by the assessing officer are not recorded on "oath but questionnaire was issued to the relevant persons and the replies to same were prepared by them after discussion amongst themselves and then it was submitted to the Income tax department. The relevant questions and answers in the statements recorded during cross examination are reproduced hereunder: Dr. Vishal M Gupta Que. No 23 : You are shown your statement dated 16/04/2010 and in particular question no 20 and its answer. Where you given the questions asked in the said statement before Dr. Anil Jain gave his statement or thereafter Rs Ans: I am not aware of the exact time of receiving this questionnaire.

Shri R.G. Shah, CA, appeared on behalf of appellant and intimated that Hon'ble ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Ahmedabad, has passed order dtd. 18/10/2013 in the case of Dr. Keyur Parikh and others. Copy of order of Hon'ble ITAT in IT(ss)A No. 604,610&601/Ahd/2011 was filed. From the perusal of this order it is found that the first ground of the revenue in the case of Dr. Keyur Parikh was as follows:

This ground has been decided by Hon'ble ITAT with the following observation: "Next point. It is a universal law that the 'Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of evidence'. At best, it can only lead to investigation. No person can be punished merely on the basis of a doubt, but side by side, must not be spared on the basis of unfavorable evidence. So the procedure is that a mistrust leads to investigation and an investigation leads to collection of evidence. There are several decisions in the past pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein a general rule is framed that although the ITO is not fettered by the technical rule of evidence, but ITO is not entitled to make a pure guess, however, required to make an assessment without reference to any evidence. There must be something more than bare suspicion. In the present appeal a fundamental question is that whether there was sufficient clinching evidence unearthed by the Revenue Department consequent upon the search to make a firm belief that in fact there was the existence of unaccounted investment in the purchase of land. Side by side a second question therefore arises that whether the impugned addition was in the nature of suspicion only. We have carefully examined both these questions and then on critical analysis of the evidences and under the totality of the circumstances, we hereby hold that those were not even the incriminating material but simply computer generated projection sheets, therefore, hard to say, synonymous to clinching material evidence depicting cash transaction, hence erroneously suspected by the Revenue Department. We hereby hold that there was no evidence in possession of the Revenue Department to hold that the assessee had in fact made an unaccounted investment towards the purchase of the property. "

In the case of Dr. Keyur Parikh's appeal, the grounds of assessee and the decision of Hon'ble ITAT is reproduced below from the above mentioned order of Hon'ble ITAT. "B. IT(ss)A No. 604/Ahd/2011,A.Y. 2008-09 (Assessee Dr. Keyur Parikh's Appeal), 13. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the Assessee is reproduced below: "1. The learned Commissioner (Appeal) failed to understand the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeal) erred in fact and in law in not accepting the contention of the appellant that the assessing officer has relied, upon dumb documents and computer hard disk found from the office /Ahd/2014 & C.O. No. 132/A/14 & CO No.133/Ahd/2014 Asst. Years –2007-08 & 2008-09 - 18 - premises of the company namely CCCPL and residence of the doctors during the search.

Learned AR has stated that ground no.I is general in nature and ground no.2 relates to the main ground of the Revenue. In the light of this submission, these grounds being general in nature and not raising any particular legal issue, therefore, dismissed being redundant.

The explanation of the assessee in respect of the payment made to CCCPL was as under:

A view has already been taken that in the absence of a direct evidence of cash involvement the impugned addition did not survive. In consequence thereof the relief given by learned CIT(A) pertaining to the year under consideration is hereby confirmed. The ground of the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed.

We are not convinced the manner in which learned CIT(A) has held that the balance amount of Rs.11.75 lacs was to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. As far as cash investment towards purchase of property is concerned a view has already been taken which is to be applied in the present case as well. Resultantly, the ground of the Revenue has no force. Hence dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.”

It appears from the records that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- III, Ahmedabad, dated 27.09.2011 cross appeals respectively filed by the assessee and the Revenue before us in IT(SS)A No. 604/Ahd/2011, IT(SS)A No.610/Ahd/2011, IT(SS)A No.601/Ahd/2011, IT(SS)A No.674/Ahd/2011, IT(SS)A No.603/Ahd/2011, IT(SS)A No.639/Ahd/2011, IT(SS)A No.612/Ahd/2011, C.O. No.29/Ahd/2012, IT(SS)A No.602/Ahd/2011, IT(SS)A No.640/Ahd/2011, IT(SS)A No.634/Ahd/2011, IT(SS)A No.652/Ahd/2011, IT(SS)A No.611/Ahd/2011, C.O. No.28/Ahd/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09. The ground before the Ld. CIT(A) was that the AO had erred in relying upon the “Dumb Documents” particularly the hard disk found from the computer resulting in addition of Rs. 5,52,50,000/- as “unaccounted income” utilized in acquiring 9,75,000/- shares of CCCPL at Rs. 56.67 per shares. In respect of the contention of “Dumb Documents” the Ld. CIT(A) has given the order in favour of the assessee with the following manner: ““In response to this letter, the stamp duty valuation cell has computed the stamp duty at Rs.12,45,400/- on the total value of land of Rs.254,16,200/-. Accordingly CCCPL paid Rs.501,440 towards Stamp duty on 6.3.2007 by ch. no. 349370 and 336438 of Rs.250,720 each of ICICI Bank A/c No.029505000156. this clearly shows that CCCPL had agreed to purchase land before 5.3.2007. It is to be mentioned that the stamp duty valuation cellis interested in stamp duty collection on transfer of the land on the basis of higher of Jantri rate or the sale rate. In the absence of higher sale rate, for the purpose of stamp duty, valuation is done by them on the basis of /Ahd/2014 & C.O. No. 132/A/14 & CO No.133/Ahd/2014 Asst. Years –2007-08 & 2008-09 - 22 - Jantri rate which has been shown at Rs.254,16,200 for the said property which was brought by the CCCPL as on July 2007. Therefore, it is wrong on the part of the AR to contend that the market rate of the property was Rs.254,16,200. In fact, it was the jantri rate as decided by the stamp duty valuation cell for the purpose of collection of stamp duty on transfer of the immovable property.””

In that particular appeal before the Tribunal the Ld. DR placed reliance on the statement of Dr. Anil Jain who had parted ways with the company but at the time when the project was started, his services were available as he was also one of the investor. His statement cannot be ruled out because of the statement was made by that person who had been a witness to the transaction as argued by the Ld. D.R. therein similar to the submission made by the Ld. DR before us. In fact, after careful consideration of the statement of Dr. Anil Jain and the cross-examination made by the assessee therein the Coordinate Bench came to a finding that Dr. Anil Jain has kept on changing his statement and therefore, as far as his statements are concerned, those are not said to be very dependable as it is appearing at Page 29 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench. The relevant extract of the said observation is made hereinbelow: “8.5 Next point. We have also examined the statements of various doctors which were used by the Revenue Department against the assessee. A statement of Dr. Anil R. Jain was recorded on 23rd of September, 2008 u/s. 132(4) of IT Act. In that statement, there was no such acceptance of involvement of cash transaction. Question No.7, 8 &9 and Answer No.7, 8 & 9 of the said statement were the direct questions but in those answers there was categorical denial of any investment other than the share capital. Dr. Anil Jain has stated that he had opted out from the project and the amount he has invested was refunded as his share application money. Later on an another statement was recorded by the ITO and in that statement Dr. Anil Jain had taken a turtle-turn and alleged the cash component. If we compare a statement u/s.132(4) with the statement made u/s.131 of IT Act then the law is very clear that a statement u/s132(4) has evidentiary value and not the statement made u/s.131 of IT Act. A statement recorded u/s. 132(4) is a statement on oath. Therefore, a statement recorded on oath can be used as an evidence. As against that a statement recorded u/s.131 is not a statement on oath, therefore, it cannot be used as an evidence hence, such a statement has no evidentiary value. Rather in this case it was made in the form of a questionnaire handed over to those out-going doctors, who have not answered the questions under oath. This is one of the reason that we are hesitant to /Ahd/2014 & C.O. No. 132/A/14 & CO No.133/Ahd/2014 Asst. Years –2007-08 & 2008-09 - 23 - uphold the revenue’s reliance on a statement made before the AO. Moreover, Dr. Anil Jain has kept on changing his statement therefore as far as his statements are concerned, those are not said to be very dependable. In this connection, it is also worth to mention that a third party statement should not be made the basis of addition for income tax purpose. The Tax proceedings should be based upon certain direct evidence so that there must not be any miscarriage of justice.”

So far as the cash component in making payment towards the consideration of the property for consideration of the hospital is concerned the Coordinate Bench was pleased to observe as follows: “8.10 The Revenue Department has held that the 15% payment was in cheque and 85% payment was in cash which were mentioned on number of occasion as per the data sheets of the computer. Prima facie, those sheets have demonstrated that the contribution of the doctors was to be made in the said proportion. The explanation of the assessee in general is that percentage of contribution was fixed in the light of the progress of the construction, keeping in mind the completion of the project. The assessee has also explained the 15% of the total project was in fact allocated towards the land which was required to be arranged by the doctors at the time of the joining of the project and rest 85% was allocated towards the cost of the project. There were several sheets showing various permutation and combination about the investments made by the doctors but all that which was recorded in the computer have also been systematically recorded in the respective books of accounts. Rather, the bank accounts in support of the investment have also been placed during assessment proceedings. On those bank transactions and the transactions recorded in the books the Revenue Department has not casted any doubt. Those were found to be true and correct as there was no fallacy in the transaction happened to be made through bank. 8.11 Learned AR has raised an argument that no corresponding legal action so far was taken against the sellers of the property. According to him, Revenue Department should have charged the capital gain on the alleged cash component from those companies who have sold the property. By not taking any action the Revenue Department had weakened the allegation. We have asked this question from the Revenue Department but failed to get any satisfactory reply. 8.12 From the side of assessee few case laws have been cited in support of the contention that learned CIT(A) went wrong in directing the assessment to be in the hands of the assessee company. In the case of CIT Vs. Krishi Udpadan Mandi Samiti, 336 ITR 77 (Ald), it was held that there was no material with CIT(A) to direct the receipts to be taxed in the hand of the Mandi Parishad. It was held that such directions were without jurisdictions. Likewise in the case of Mrs. Banoo E. Cawasji, 10 Taxman 97 (MP) it was held that CIT(A) was not competent to issue direction to cancel an assessment made in the case of the deceased. An another order has also been cited, namely, Sun Metal Factory (I) (P.) Ltd., 124 ITD 14 (Chennai). In this judgment, a search was on the assessee and on the managing director. On appeal /Ahd/2014 & C.O. No. 132/A/14 & CO No.133/Ahd/2014 Asst. Years –2007-08 & 2008-09 - 24 - CIT(A) had held that the addition made in the block assessment did not emanate from the evidence found at the time of search hence the addition was not sustained. However, learned CIT(A) has directed to issue notice u/s 148 to bring to tax the bogus advances. It was held that the learned CIT(A) has failed to record a categorical finding justifying the direction given to the AO when the AO had not chosen for reopening of the assessment then the direction given by learned CIT(A) were to be set aside. In the light of these decisions, learned AR has vehemently pleaded that the direction made by learned CIT(A) to assess the cash component in the hands of the company was beyond his jurisdiction therefore required to be over ruled. Considering the circumstances under which such directions were given, it is hereby held, not valid in the eyes of law. 8.13 Next point. It is a universal law that the ‘Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of evidence’. At best, it can only lead to investigation. No person can be punished merely on the basis of a doubt, but side by side, must not be spared on the basis of unfavorable evidence. So the procedure is that a mistrust leads to investigation and an investigation leads to collection of evidence. There are several decisions in the past pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein a general rule is framed that although the ITO is not fettered by the technical rule of evidence, but ITO is not entitled to make a pure guess, however, required to make an assessment without reference to any evidence. There must be something more than bare suspicion. In the present appeal a fundamental question is that whether there was sufficient clinching evidence unearthed by the Revenue Department consequent upon the search to make a firm belief that in fact there was the existence of unaccounted investment in the purchase of land. Side by side a second question therefore arises that whether the impugned addition was in the nature of suspicion only. We have carefully examined both these questions and then on critical analysis of the evidences and under the totality of the circumstances, we hereby hold that those were not even the incriminating material but simply computer generated projection sheets, therefore, hard to say, synonymous to clinching material evidence depicting cash transaction, hence erroneously suspected by the Revenue Department. We hereby hold that there was no evidence in possession of the Revenue Department to hold that the assessee had in fact made an unaccounted investment towards the purchase of the property.” ………… “12. With this background, we have heard both the sides. As far as the issue of the existence of cash component in the purchase of the land is concerned, we have already taken a view that it was not conclusively established by the Revenue Department. In addition to the discussion made hereinabove on this issue, again we have noted that while deciding this ground learned CIT(A) has reiterated that the AO had presumed that some of the doctors have contributed cash for the allotment of the shares. This is the point which has been emphasized and vehemently objected by the assessee that the entire proceedings in respect of the involvement of cash towards purchase of property was based upon the presumption made by the AO. Even the learned CIT(A) has opined that, “even if it is presumed that the cash was paid back to the outgoing surgeons, the same was paid by the company CCCPL and not by Keyur Parikh in his individual capacity”. Undisputedly it was the company who had allotted the shares to Dr. Keyur Parikh. Therefore, the Revenue Officers were not /Ahd/2014 & C.O. No. 132/A/14 & CO No.133/Ahd/2014 Asst. Years –2007-08 & 2008-09 - 25 - sure whether the cash was actually paid back to the outgoing doctors by CCCPL or by Dr Parikh. In the absence of any concrete evidence, it was not justifiable for the Revenue Officers to tax the impugned amount in the hands of the assesseee. Learned CIT(A) has rather confused the issue. If he is of the view that it was to be presumed that cash was paid back to the outgoing doctors then why at all merely on suspicion he has directed to assess the same in the hands of the company CCCPL. Skepticism must not lead to inflict punishment. Rather in a situation when CIT(A) had the uncertainty then judicious approach would be that he should have justifiably deleted the addition on his own, instead of directing the AO to examine the facts and tax in the hands of the company CCCPL. It is worth to mention that as on date nothing is on record to see whether any consequential action was taken in the case of CCCPL. In a situation when we have already taken a view that there was no element of on money in the purchase of the property in question then in consequence thereof, there was no element of payment of cash to the outgoing doctors. We, therefore, affirm the findings of the learned CIT(A) to the extent that the amount in question is not to be taxed in the hands of doctor Keyur Parikh. This ground of the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed.”

It is relevant to mention that appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the matter of Dr. Keyur Parikh and ors. in IT(SS)A No. 604/Ahd/2011 alongwith the appeals preferred by other different Doctors and the appeals preferred by Revenue as mentioned in Paragraph 19 hereinabove which was initially admitted by the Hon’ble High Court by and under its order dated 15.10.2014. However, the entire set of appeals have been dismissed on 04.09.2018 since all were withdrawn by the Revenue due to tax effect /Ahd/2014 & C.O. No. 132/A/14 & CO No.133/Ahd/2014 Asst. Years –2007-08 & 2008-09 - 26 - below the minimum threshold limit provided by the CBDT in its Circular dated 11.07.2018 enabling the Department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. Copy of both the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court were duly been filed before us by the respective parties. Dismissal of this order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court R/Tax Appeal No. 26 of 2014 and ors. confirms the fact of the order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the Coordinate Bench attaining finality. As we have already discussed on the observation made by the Coordinate Bench on the identical issue involved in this matter relation to the addition on the ground of unaccounted investment for the purchase of land whereby and whereunder it has been repeatedly hold that there was no evidence found in the possession of Revenue to hold that assessee had in fact made unaccounted investment towards the purchase of the property or was there any element of payment of cash to the outgoing Doctors, we at this stage find no reason to deviate from such stand taken by the Coordinate Bench in holding otherwise. We note that since the issue has already been decided there is no basis of agitating the same issue repeatedly by the Revenue in repeated litigation. We, therefore, find no ambiguity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition passed by the Revenue in view of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in holding no unaccounted investment found towards purchase of the property in question. We, therefore, upheld the same. The Revenue’s appeal is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and hence dismissed.