Dr. Radheshyam B.Agarwal, Palanpur vs Assessee

अपीलाथ!/ (Appellant) "#यथ!/ (Respondent)

Assessee(s) by : Shri Tushar Hemani, AR Revenue by : Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr.DR

सन ु वाई क तार ख/ Dateof Hearing : 21/01/2015 घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement: 02/02/2015

आदे श/O R D E R

PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by

the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XX, Ahmedabad dated 15.12.2010.

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of the appeal:

"1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by confirming the estimated and ad hoc addition of Rs.5,05,535/- in the indoor fees income has made by the AO.

2. Your appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal."

3. The brief facts of the case are that the AO on verification of books of accounts of the assessee noted the following discrepancies:

ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 2 1. Firstly, the statement given by Mr. Thakkar during the cross examination is grossly baseless, without any evidences, far away from facts, differing figures grossly, and contradictory from the original statement given by him for A. O. 's order, which is not acceptable at all.

2. Further out hundreds of cases treated by me during the year under consideration, A SINGLE PERSON, WHO IS PREJUDICED AND FILED CIVIL CASE against me, cannot be relied upon only for such huge addition on simple equation basis for whole year, and that too having no any evidence produced by him.

3. There is neither any proof of fees alleged to be paid by Mr. Thakkar, has produced at the time of original hearing/assessment nor during my cross examination on 14-12-2009. Orally telling -

saying cannot be accepted at all. Whereas, I have produced a copy of Fees Receipt ( -No. 3535 dated 15-01-1997) for fees charged by me from him, Indoor fees Register - where the same is recorded, Indoor Case Papers file, books of accounts, etc. to you.

4. Furthermore, while going through the cross examination of Mr. Thakkar, oathed in your respected presence on 14-12-2009, the following material discrepancies are eminent, which are far away from the facts,

a. As per Accessing Officer's original assessment order dated 31-03-2002, vide para (2((ii) on page 5 states that Mr. Thakkar has paid Rs. 400 for indoor fees totally on 23- 01-1997, whereas, during the cross examination he has replied that he has paid Rs.1,000/- on 23-01-1997, which absolutely contradicts his own sayings ( i. e. Rs.400 Vs. Rs. 1,000). Accordingly, his both statements are contradictory, baseless and not acceptable.

b. Again during the cross examination on 14-12-2009, he says that he paid Rs.600/- on 25-01-1997, which he has never stated in his original statement as per A. O. 's Order. Meaning thereby he is grossly manipulating his sayings to harass me as he has filed Civil Suit against me.

c. Again, during the cross examination, he says that he paid Rs.1,000/- lumpsum breakupwise Rs. 200 for ECT+Rs.125 room charges + Rs.80 visit charges for 2 days, which do not tally the figure of Rs.1,000 paid? It is no where tradition of collecting lump sum amount at the time of discharge. It is ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 3

exact and final charges to be paid at the time of discharge of patient. Accordingly, his both statement are contradictory, baseless and not acceptable.

d. Further, during the cross examination Mr. Thakkar said that on 15-01-1997, 22-01-1997 and on 25-01-1997 he has paid fees at reception counter to person other than me. While as per my tradition since beginning of my hospital, I collect all charges directly from patient, and not being collected at reception. Which again, falsify his statement grossly. Thus, at every stage of his statements he has manipulated the fact against me for harassment.

5. Moreover, It is my tradition to collect charges at the time of discharge only, while in this case as the patient died in the hospital, I didn 't collect any charges from Mr. Thakkar, considering humanity and sorrow feeling towards them.

6. Under the above situation, looking to the facts and evidence on my part and erroneous/grossly farcifying statement of Mr. Thakkar, I earnestly request you Sir, not to accept or consider his saying- statement at all and adjudicate me by dropping the proposed addition into and oblige.

5. The assessee's above reply is carefully considered. As per the Hon. ITAT's direction, sufficient opportunity has been given to the assessee by taking the cross examines with Shri Amrutlal J Thakkar. Shri Amrutlal J Thakkar in his reply dated 14,12.2009 once again confirmed that the assessee has received indoor fees of Rs.400/- in the case of his daughter, Daxaben A Thakkar on 23.01.1997. Further, Shri Amrutlal J Thakkar stated in question 9 in his reply that he has given a lumsum amount ofRs. WOO/- to the Dr. Radheshyam Agrawal on 23.01.97 at 5.00 PM as indoor fees charges i.e. Rs.200/- for ECT charge, Rs.125/- for room charge and Rs.80/- visit charge. Shri Amrutlal J Thakkar was already stated in his statement given on 09.03.2000 that he has paid as indoor fees charges i.e. Rs.200/-for ECT charge, Rs.125/- for room charge and Rs.80/- visit charge. Hence, there is no contradictory statement found in reply given by the Shri Amrutlal Thakkar on 14.12.2009.

5.1 Further on perusing of records, it is noticed that the above charges have not been recorded in the books of account or indoor records. However, the assessee once again failed to do so.

ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 4 5.2 On verification of books of accounts the following discrepancy once Again found.

A. He has maintained indoor patient register, and indoor fee receipt books but neither complete addresses of patients nor the information relating to diagnosis, or nature of treatment given to each patient is mentioned therein.

B The dates of admission to the hospital and discharged from the hospital is not exactly written.

C No details/break up of visit fee, room chares, or other charges has been given separately in the said indoor fee register.

D No separate ward wise occupation/room wise accommodation register in respect of indoor patients have been maintained by the assessee, no any appointment dairy for OPD or indoor patients is maintained or produced.

E In his indoor register, names of the patients only have been mentioned and in most of the cases, no any surnames or complete addresses have been given. Thus, the indoor fee patient's fee disclosed by him is not verifiable from patients and so cannot be relied upon and be accepted and hence his books of accounts and book results are proposed to be once again rejected u/s 145(2) of the Act, his indoor income of Rs.5,05,535/- is proposed to be estimated as per order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2000.

5.3 In view of the above facts and discussions, the assessee's contention is not accepted and as the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim, Rs. 5,05,535/- is added back to the income of the assessee on the lines as mentioned in the order passed in para-2 as indoor fee income on 31.03.2000 u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act by the then A.O. "

4. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee has submitted as under:

"The Appellant is an individual having professional income from medical practice, as a psychiatrist, carried on in the name of Anand Psychiatric Nursing Home. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 28/08/1997 declaring income of Rs.1,10,520/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 5

appellant has duly furnished necessary information and explanations as required by the A.O. from time to time. Assessment was finalized by order u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31/03/2000 at total income of Rs.9,74,610/- after making various additions.

The Appellant preferred appeal against such assessment and all the additions were deleted by the Hon'ble CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad by order dated 12/06/2002. However, the Department preferred appeal before the Hon'ble IT AT, Bench "D", Ahmedabad and by order dated 14/09/2007 in IT A No,3051/ahd/2002, the Hon'ble IT AT restored the matter regarding estimated addition of Rs.5,05,535/- in indoor fees income to the file of the A.O. with a direction to allow the Appellant an opportunity of cross examination with Mr. Amratlal Thakkar and decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the Appellant.

In view of above direction the notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 18-06-2009. Subsequently due to change of incumbent and directions of Hon. ITAT as mentioned above, fresh notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on 23-09-2009 requiring the Appellant to file the submissions afresh. The A.O, also as directed by the Hon'ble ITAT, allowed to the Appellant opportunity of cross examining Mr. Amratlal J. Thakkar.

A summons was issued u/s. 131 to Mr. Amratlal J. Thakkar for his cross examination to be taken by appellant. Bith the Appellant and Mr. Amratlal J. Thakkar attended office on 14-12-2009 and the Appellant examined Mr. Amratlal J. Thakkar. The A.O. then issued show cause notice dated 16-12-2009 stating the facts stated by Mr. Amritlal J. Thakkar and asking the Appellant to submit the explanation/ clarification /submission along with necessary documentary evidence, in proof as to receipt of fees of Rs.400/-from Daxaben A Thakkar on 23-01-2007 and to show cause as to why proportionate additional income not disclosed in books and which worked out while order passed u/s. 143(3) on30-03-2000 treated as income from undisclosed sources at Rs. 5,05,535/-.

The appellant in reply thereof submitted all the information and explanations and also produced Books of Accounts giving particulars regarding indoor fees. Further, by letter dated 19/12/2009, the Appellant submitted to the A. O. that the replies given by Mr. Amritlal J. Thakkar during the cross examination are not at all reliable particularly in view of the following discrepancies in the answers given during cross examination on 14/12/2009, and his earlier statement ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 6

given at the original stage of hearing to A.O, on the basis of which original assessment was framed.

(i) Firstly, the statement given, by Mr. Thakkar during the cross examination is grossly baseless, without any evidence, far away from facts, differing figures grossly, and contradictory from the original statements given by him.

(ii) Further, out of hundreds of cases treated by the Appellant during the year under consideration. Mr. Thakkar, is only single person having prejudice towards the Appellant and has filed civil case against the Appellant, allegations made cannot be relied upon for making such huge addition.

(iii) No proof of fees alleged to be paid by Mr. Thakkar has been produced at the time of original hearing/assessment or during the-cross examination on 14/12/2009. In absence of any documentary evidence or proof only oral answer in a statement cannot be accepted at all, whereas, the appellant has produced a copy of Fees Report (No.3535 dated 15/01/1997) for fees charged Rs. 5O/-and Indoor fees Register - where the same was recorded, Indoor case papers file, books of accounts, etc.

(iv) As per A.O's original assessment order dated 31/03/2002, vide para 2(ii) on page 5, it is stated that Mr.Thakkar has paid Rs.400/- for indoor fees totally on 23/01/1997, whereas during the cross examinations he has replied that he has paid Rs. 1,000/- on 23/01/1997, which absolutely contradictory, baseless and not acceptable.

(v) Again during the cross examination on 14/12/2009, it is stated that Rs.600/- were paid on 25/01/1997, however, in his statement as per original assessment order, no such statement is made.

Again during the cross examination, he stated that he paid Rs.1,000/- lump sum (breakup wise Rs.200/-for ECT + Rs.125/-room charges + Rs.80/- visit charges for 2 days) which do not confirm with the figure of Rs. 1,OOO/- alleged to have been paid. It is to be noted that no where there is tradition of collecting lump sum amount at the time of discharge. It is only the final charges to be paid at the time of discharge of patient. Accordingly, his both statements are contradictory.

ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 7 (vii) Further, during the cross examination Mr. Thakkar said that on 15/01/1997, 22/01/1997 and on 25/01/1997 he has paid fees at reception counter to some person other than the appellant, whereas, as per the system since beginning of Appellant's hospital, all charges are directly collected from patient by the Appellant and not collected at (he reception. This also shows falsity in the statement.

(viii) Moreover, it is tradition of the Appellant to collect charges at the time of discharges only. While in this case as the patient died in the hospital, the Appellant did not even collect any charges from Mr. Thakkar, on humanitarian grounds.

In view of the above, it is absolutely clear beyond any doubt that the answers given by Mr. thakkar in his statement are baseless and evidences and more particularly so for the reason that Mr. Thakkar is the person who has filed Civil suit against the Appellant for his so called personal grievances and, therefore, his statement is biased and prejudicial to serve his self interest. Further, fees charged from him for of his daughter have been duly recorded in the indoor case papers file as well as books of accounts produced for verification. Therefore, the statement of M., Amrittal J. Thakkar cannot be relied upon.

The Appellant also states that while again making addition in indoor fees income of the Appellant, in the original assessment the A.O, relied on several assumptions and inference drawn by him in respect of indoor fees income. The Appellant has explained to the A.O, that no addition can be made in indoor fees income particularly in view of the explanations during the course of original assessment as under:

(ix) The case papers files in respect of indoor, patients admitted in hospital of the Appellant are available with the Appellant and the same were produced before the Learned AO for verification during the course of hearing. It is therefore not true that the Appellant has not maintained such case papers and files,

(x) It has been observed by the A.O, even in the original assessment also, that "you have maintained indoor patients register, and indoor fee receipt books but neither complete addresses of patients nor the information relating to diagnosis, or nature of treatment given to each ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 8

patient is mentioned therein ". The A. O. has, in the assessment order under consideration, again made similar observations to support the addition in indoor income.

(xi) The Appellant has duly explained in respect of information about complete addresses etc, that most of the patients are from nearby small villages where they are residing permanently since very long time and therefore such persons can be traced out from such villages merely by their name without any requirement of specific address giving home number etc.

(xii) The Appellant also explained as regards proper maintenance of registers giving information relating to diagnosis etc. that no such information is required to be given in the register.

(xiii) The Appellant also explained that dates of admission in the hospital and discharge therefrom the recorded in the case papers and registers, which were available for verification during the course of hearing. Therefore, it is not correct that no such dates have been given.

(xiv) The A.O, has again observed that no details/break-up of visit fees, room charges, or other charges have been given separately in the said indoor fee register. The Appellant further submits that specific details in this regard are given in the bills which contain duly primed serial numbers and the same were available for verification during the course of hearing.

(xv) The A.O. has further observed that no separate ward-wise occupation/room-wise accommodation register of indoor patients have been maintained by the Assesses, nor any appointment diary for OPD or indoor patients is maintained or produced. The appellant submits in this regard, that all such details regarding Indoor patients. Further, as stated above it is not necessary under law to maintain the register as suggested, however, such details, can be worked out by analyzing information available in the bills.

(xvi) The A,O, has also observed that in indoor register, names of patients only have been mentioned and in most of the cases, no any surnames or complete addresses have been given. Thus, the indoor fee patients fee disclosed is not hence the books of accounts and book results are proposed to be once again rejected u/s. 145(2) of ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 9

the Act, and indoor income is proposed to be estimated as per order passed u/s, 143(3) of the I, T. Act, 1961 on 31/03/2000.

(xvii) The Appellant has to submit that these observations are not correct in as much as the details required are available either in the case records or in the bills or in the register and the same can be collected from any of such records In this regard without knowledge of the Appellant, however, no such information found necessary have been called for from the Appellant during the course of hearing, which the Appellant could have submitted so at to fully and satisfactorily explain the same to the learned A.O.

The Appellant therefore submits that, In view of the above, the action of the learned A.O. of again rejecting the book result by resorting to provisions of section 145(2) is not justifiable, particularly in absence of any documentary evidences or material in respect of any specific instances to prove beyond any doubt that the books of accounts maintained are not correct and reliable.

The Appellant submits that all the necessary information for verification is available in the records of the Appellant, As such, the observations regarding having collected more fees than disclosed in the Return of income are not based on any documentary evidences or material. Moreover, very heavy reliance has been placed on only one single party viz. Shri Amritlal J, Thakkar who has filed civil suit against the Appellant regarding treatment of his daughter and his biased, which is not supported by any evidence, has been utilized for the purpose of again making addition in the case of the Appellant, which is totally unwarranted and not justifiable at all.

The A.O, has however finalized the set aside assessment by making addition of Rs,5,05,535/- purely on estimated basis as per original assessment order dated 31/03/2000 and has assessed income at Rs.6,86,813/-.

The Appellant, therefore, prays that the adhoc deduction of Rs.5,05,535/- may please be deleted fully."

5. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition by following observations:

ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 10 "4.3 I have gone through the assessment order and the submissions of the AR carefully. It is seen that the same plea has been raised before the undersigned as well as before the AO. No additional evidence or arguments have been put forth by the AR. The AO has considered the arguments of the AR which are elaborately dealt with in the assessment order. It is seen that even during the cross examination of Mr. Thakkar, especially, Mr. Thakkar has reiterated his statement. Except for making general observations that the Doctor received the payments himself and no one was authorized to receive the money in his Nursing Home, the appellant has not been able to prove that the statement of Shri Thakkar is not reliable. The addition made by the AO is hence on sound footing. The same is confirmed."

6. Before us, the AR of the assessee submitted that assessee is a medical practitioner (psychiatrist). The AO made the impugned addition in respect of indoor fees income merely on the basis of estimation. Original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 31.03.2000 (Pgs.l to 9 @ 4 to 7 of P/B) wherein AO found that one Mr. Amritlal J. Thakkar had filed a civil suit against appellant. Hence, AO called for details from Mr. Thakkar. Mr. Thakkar stated before AO that his daughter, Smt. Daxaben A. Thakkar, was under treatment of the assessee and he had paid fees of Rs.400/- to the assessee for two days indoor treatment (i.e. Rs.200/- per day). AO erroneously reached to a conclusion that fees for such sum of Rs.400/-was actually charged from Mr. Thakkar and was not recorded in books of accounts. AO further found that assessee has disclosed fees of Rs.430/- for treatment of 7 days in case of other patients (i.e. average Rs.60/- per day). Hence, AO estimated indoor fees based on aforesaid averages (i.e. Rs.200/-from Mr. Thakkar and Rs.60/- as disclosed in books) at Rs.7,22,193/- (i.e. Rs.200 / Rs.60 * Rs.2,16,658 being indoor fees). Since assessee had already disclosed indoor fees income at Rs.2,16,658/-, addition was restricted to Rs.5,05,535/- (i.e. Rs.7,22,193 - Rs.2,16,658) ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 11

(Pg.6 of P/B). The AR submitted that CIT(A) deleted the said addition vide its order dated 12.06.02 (Pgs.28 to 36 @ 28 to 33 of P/B). On Revenue's appeal, the ITAT, vide its order dated 14.09.07 (Pgs.37 to 40 @ 37 to 38A of P/B) restored the matter to AO with a direction to allow the assessee an opportunity of cross examining Mr. Thakkar. As per ITAT's direction, AO afforded an opportunity of cross examining Mr. Thakkar on 14.12.09. Cross examination statement of Mr. Thakkar recorded on 14.12.09 alongwith its English translation is placed at Pgs.41 to 46 of P/B. Again, AO made impugned addition of Rs.5,05,535/- without appreciating documentary evidences and the same came to be confirmed by CIT(A). The AR submitted that the lower authorities didn't appreciate facts in its entirety and the impugned addition is merely an outcome of estimation made on the basis of statement of Mr. Thakkar which is not supported by any evidences. He submitted that as per the averments of Mr. Thakkar at the stage of original assessment, he had paid Rs.400/- to the assessee and AO took a view that the same was not recorded in the books of accounts (Pg.6 of Asst. Order). The aforesaid averment is factually incorrect. The AR submitted that correct fact is that assessee had charged merely Rs.50/- (and not Rs.400/-) from Mr. Thakkar in respect of treatment of Smt. Daxaben A. Thakkar which has been duly recorded in indoor fees register on 15.01.1997 vide Entry No.3535 and its receipt was also issued. Relevant extract of indoor fees register and receipts on sampling basis are placed at Pgs.47 to 56 @ 49 & 54 of P/B). Further, Mr. Thakkar, at the original assessment stage stated that he had paid fees of Rs.400/- (pg. 5 of P/B) whereas at the stage of cross examination, he stated that he has paid ad hoc fees of Rs.1,000/- (pg.45 of PB). Thus, Mr. Thakkar's statement is self- contradictory, and also, such sum of Rs.1,000/- was said to have been paid on "ad-hoc" basis whereas the fact is that there is no tradition of collecting ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 12

ad-hoc fees. Mr. Thakkar stated that break-up of such ad-hoc sum of Rs.1,000/- was this wise i.e. ECT charges Rs.220/-, room charges Rs.125/- and visiting fees Rs.80/- (Pg.45 of P/B). Such three figures aggregates to Rs.425/-. Thus, there is no correlation between ad hoc sum of Rs.1,000/- and its break-up. Mr. Thakkar, in his statement recorded on 14.12.09, stated that he had paid fees on reception counter whereas the fact is that appellant had the practice of collecting fees from patients himself. Mr. Thakkar further stated in his statement dated 14.12.09 that he had paid Rs.60/- towards fees and Rs.600/- as deposit. However, no such statement was made at the original assessment stage. As can be seen from above, addition cannot be made on basis of statements of Mr. Thakkar since the same suffer from following defects which makes the same unreliable:

His statements are not backed by any documentary evidences whereas appellant has substantiated his stand by producing indoor fees register and fees receipt.

His statements are self-contradictory as to fees paid by him.

Also appellant doesn't have a system of accepting ad hoc payments as alleged by Mr.Thakkar.

Rs.1,000/- paid on ad hoc basis does not coincide with its break- up.

Cross examination statement contains an averment as to payment of Rs.600/- which was not made at the original assessment stage.

Mr. Thakkar 's statement is bound to be prejudiced since his daughter died in appellant's hospital consequent to which Mr. Thakkar also filed civil suit against the appellant.

The AR of the assessee submitted that it is a settled law that only real income can be taxed. Hence, taxing income worked out merely on the basis of estimation is not tenable in the eye of law. Thus, lower authorities are ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 13

not justified in rejecting appellant's books and in making the impugned addition. In the interest of justice, impugned addition deserves to be deleted.

7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. In the instant case, the assessee declared indoor fee at Rs.2,16,658/-, which was estimated by the AO at Rs.7,22,193/-, and consequently, the addition of Rs.5,05,535/- was made to the income of the assessee. The said addition was made on the basis of the statement of Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar, father of one of the patients of the assessee, who claimed to have paid fee of Rs.400/- for two days, whereas, the assessee claimed to have charged such fee at Rs.60/- per day. This issue came before the Tribunal in ITA No.3051/Ahd/2002 wherein the Tribunal vide its order dated 14.9.2007 restored back the matter to the file of the AO with direction to allow assessee opportunity to cross-examine the said Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar , and thereafter to reframe the assessment as per law. Accordingly, the assessee was allowed opportunity to cross-examine Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar on 14.12.2009. A copy of the said statement recorded on cross-

examination with its English version is placed at page no.41 to 46 of the paper book. The AO after taking into consideration the statement recorded on cross-examination again made addition of the same amount, which was also confirmed by the CIT(A).

8. The AR of the assessee pointed out before us from the statement of Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar recorded on 23.1.1997 that the daughter of Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar died in the nursing home of the assessee, and thereafter, he filed a suit against the assessee. Thus, Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar was hostile to the assessee. Further, Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar now claims to have paid fee of not Rs.400/- but Rs.1000/-, but when asked to give break-up of Rs.1000/-, he gave the break-up as Rs.200/- for ECT, Rs.125/- room charges, Rs.80/- visit charges for two days.

ITA No.650/Ahd/2011 14 Further, when Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar was asked to furnish evidence of his making payment of fees, as claimed by him to have paid, Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar could not produce any receipt. Thus, in the absence of any evidence produced by Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar, the statement of Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar in the facts of the case cannot be treated as an evidence against the assessee.

9. In reply, the DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

10. We find that in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, the statement of Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar cannot be read as evidence against the assessee, when he was not able to adduce any material in support of his statement, and he was in legal confrontation with the assessee. We find that no cogent reason as to why the statement of Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar should be treated more sacrosanct than the statement of the assessee. Apart from the statement of Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar, there is no other material brought on record by the Revenue to show that the assessee has actually received indoor fee of more than Rs.2,16,658/- during the year under consideration. In the absence of any material brought on record to corroborate the statement of Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar, in our considered opinion, the addition made on the basis of the statement of Shri Amritlal J. Thakkar in the above facts and circumstances of the case, is not legally sustainable. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs.5,05,535/- and allow the ground of the appeal of the assessee.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on Monday, the 2nd February, 2015 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ( N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; 02/02/2015