Dr. Nitin Prakash Kochar vs The Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

Assessee Dr. Nitin Prakash Kochar filed an original return of income on 05.12.2020 showing total income of Rs.42,58,230/-. The assessee revised return of income on 15.12.2020 to Rs.33,46,140/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny, accordingly, the Assessing Officer(AO) issued various notices. Assessee filed submission before the Assessing Officer. The AO asked assessee to explain the reasons for reduction of income in the revised return of income. The assessee submitted that inadvertently Rs.1,89,909/- which was an amount of Refund of Deposit from Sigma Hospital was shown as Professional Receipt. Similarly, certain expenditure of Rs.5,68,000/- which was paid to Dr.Daniel Fernandes and Dr.Rashmi Kochar, but remained to be claimed in the Original Return of Income. The amounts of Rs.1,05,230/- and Rs.48,950/- remained to be claimed as expenditure. After considering the assessee’s submission, the AO assessed the total income at Rs.42,58,230/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.9,12,089 made by the A.O. by taxing the total income of Rs.42,58,230 declared in the original ITR u/s 139(1) as against the total income of Rs.33,46,140 declared in the revised ITR filed u/s 139(5) on a mechanical basis without appreciating that the said action of the A.O. was not justified on facts and in law.
• 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that upon filing the revised ITR u/s 139(5), the original ITR u/s 139(1) is replaced by the revised ITR and therefore, the additions of Rs.9,12,089 made by the A.O. merely by relying on the receipts and expenses declared in the original ITR u/s 139(1) were not justified in law and on facts of the case.
• 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,89,909 made by the A.O towards professional receipts without appreciating that the said receipt represents refund of deposits kept with M/s. Six Sigma Medicare & Research Ltd. in earlier years which do not constitute income of the appellant and hence, the said addition was not justified on facts of the case and hence, the no addition is required in respect of the said amount.
• 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.5,68,000 made by the A.O towards Professional Charges paid to two doctors on vague grounds without appreciating that the said payments were made through banking channel after deduction of TDS and the said receipts were also offered to tax by the recipient doctors in their ITRs filed for A.Y.2020 - 21 and therefore, there was no reason to disallow the said expenses merely because the deduction in respect of the same remained to be claimed in the original ITR u/s 139(1).
• 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.1,54,180 made by the A.O by disallowing the ‘Petrol & Diesel Expenses’ of Rs. 1,05,230 and ‘Salary & Wages Expenses’ of Rs.48,950claimed additionally in the revised ITR filed u/s 139(5) without appreciating that the said expenses were genuinely incurred for business purposes and there was no reason to disallow the same merely because the said expenses remained to be claimed in the original ITR filed u/s 139(1) for A.Y.2020-21.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Abhay Kumar Jain Vs DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2021-22Partly Allowed

• ED2042 PK AYYAMPALAYAM MPCS LTD. v. ITO, WARD 2(1) ERODE

• Aakash Bhardwaj vs AO Circle-1

  Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi benchAY 2024-25Allowed

• Noida Cyber Park Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT

  Delhi bench

• AMIT GUPTA (HUF) Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER

  DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI benchAY 2013-14Partly Allowed

• Ayush Jaiswal vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre

  Allahabad bench