DR. HITESHBHAI AMICHANDBHAI PATEL,HIMATNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K. WARD-3, HIMATNAGAR

PDF · subscribers

ITA 1744/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 February 2026AY 2010-11Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the receipts were from medical services (like deliveries and sonography) and allowed for proportionate expenses such as medicines, anesthetics, and nursing charges. It reduced the addition to 50% of the unexplained receipts, confirming Rs.4,07,565/-.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the Income-tax Department found total receipts of Rs.22,75,090/- against Rs.14,15,120/- shown by the assessee, a doctor. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs.8,15,130/- as unexplained receipts for Assessment Year 2010-11, primarily related to medical services.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the entire addition of Rs.8,15,130/- for unaccounted hospital receipts without considering proportionate expenses for medical services rendered by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, AR

For Respondent: Shri Uday Kakne Kishanrao, Sr DR

Hearing: 10.02.2026

(Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs. Dr. Hiteshbhai Amichandbhai Income Tax Officer, Patel, S.K. Ward-3, Harsh Hospital, Near Himmatnagar Hanumanji Temple, Ghirdharnagar, Near Overbridge, Himmatnagar-383001 [PAN : ABEPP 1040 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee represented by : Shri Sunil Talati, AR Revenue represented by: Shri Uday Kakne Kishanrao, Sr DR Date of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement .02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT : Delay condoned. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short) dated 19.09.2023, passed under Section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “That the impugned order passed under Section 250 of the Act is erroneous as the same is dehorse the factual and legal position. That the Ld. CIT(A), Ahmedabad erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.8,15,130/- being amount of unaccounted hospital receipt.”

3. During the survey, the total receipts found by the Income-tax Department were of Rs.22,75,090/-; out of which the assessee has shown the receipts of Dr. Hiteshbhai Amichandbhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2010-11 - 2– Rs.14,15,120/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs.8,15,130/- as unexplained receipts.

4. Before us, it was argued that the assessee is a doctor and the receipts pertain to normal delivery, cesarean delivery and sonography, as noted by the Revenue itself. The ld. Counsel prayed that the proportionate expenses towards medicines, anesthetics, and nursing charges be considered while determining the undisclosed income. We find that 50% of receipts out of the cesarean and delivery charges, etc. can be considered as appropriate and the addition is, therefore, confirmed to the tune of Rs.4,07,565/-.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →