ACIT vs Dr. Sameer Gupta

PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:

The appeal in ITA No.5327/Del/2025 for AY 2022-23, arises out of the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 17.06.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 26.03.2024 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central-2, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:-

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Assessee is an Interventional Cardiologist and had undertaken his professional studies / post graduation from USA during the period 2006 to 2014 and has been in professional practice since 2014 with recognized hospitals of NCR of Delhi. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2022-23 was filed by the assessee on 20-09-2022 declaring total income of Rs 1,08,63,450. Search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of the Act on Dr. Lal Group and its related parties on 27-07-2022, in relation to which search warrants were drawn for various hospital units of Metro Group, hospital premises of SSB Heart and Multispecialty Hospital, Faridabad and for premises of their related key persons/entities. The Metro Group of Hospitals, which operates hospitals in multiple states and cities, and SSB Central Hospital and Research Center Limited Group, which was founded after October 2020, were the two hospital groups. The Assessee was in receipt of professional fees from Metro Hospitals group and Umkal Healthcare Pvt Ltd, among other clients . Accordingly, the case of the Assessee, his wife Dr Sonia Lal Gupta, his father Dr Umesh Gupta and his mother Dr Kalpana Gupta were also centralized along with Metro group cases vide order under section 127 of the Act dated 1-2-2022.

It is not in dispute that the assessee had received Rs 1,72,50,000 as unsecured loan from his wife Dr Sonia Lal Gupta and utilized the same for purchase of property at Q-33, Greater Kailash –1, 1st Floor, New Delhi 110048. With regard to the loan received from Dr. Sonia Lal, wife of the Assessee, the Assessee furnished confirmation from Dr. Sonia Lal Gupta. The wife of the Assessee is also assessed to tax and had declared Rs 1,42,47,910 in her return for the Assessment Year 2022-23 and assessed to tax by the same Learned AO. The loan was received through regular banking channels. The Learned AO having held that the sum of Rs 1,72,50,000 was found credited in the bank statement of the Assessee, stated that the same is not reflected in the Balance Sheet of the Assessee and accordingly proceeded to treat the said loan as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Similar addition of Rs 50,00,000 was also made under section 68 of the Act in respect of loan received by the Assessee from Umkal Healthcare Pvt Ltd. This loan was repaid by the Assessee during the year itself out of disclosed sources of income traceable to disclosed bank account.

The Learned CIT(A) after examination of the entire documents that were already placed on record, found that the loan received from wife is duly reflected in the Balance Sheet under Sundry Creditors and also held that the creditworthiness of the lender is established beyond doubt. The Learned CIT(A) noted that Assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had furnished the following documents:-

The relevant observations of the Learned CIT(A) with regard to deletion of addition of Rs 1,72,50,000 are reproduced hereunder:-

The relevant observations of the Learned CIT(A) with regard to deletion of addition of Rs 50,00,000 are reproduced hereunder:-

It is pertinent to note that all the 4 family members of the Assessee listed supra and Umkal Healthcare Pvt Ltd are assessed by the same Learned AO. The main grievance of the revenue in its grounds is that the loan received by the Assessee from his wife is not reflected under the head Sundry Creditors in the Balance Sheet as on 31-3-2022 as stated by the Learned CIT(A). In this regard, we find that the Assessee had filed both Statement of Affairs (for personal account) as on 31-3-2022 and Balance Sheet as on 31-3-2022 (for professional account). The Learned AO had referred only to the Balance Sheet as on 31-3-2022. Since loan received from wife is a personal account transaction, the same is reflected in the Statement of Affairs as on 31-3-2022 and included in the figure of Rs 1,81,92,658.50 representing loan from friends & relatives enclosed in Page 38 of the Paper Book. Hence the contention of the Learned AO stands proved otherwise. Accordingly we hold that the Learned CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition of Rs 172,50,000. The assessee has to prove the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act viz. identity of the lender, credit worthiness of the lender and genuineness of transaction. Both the lenders, i.e. Dr. Sonia Lalgupta and Umkal Healthcare Private Limited are assessed to tax by the same AO and are independently assessed to income tax declaring substantial income. Hence, the identity of the lenders are proved. Both the lenders had given due confirmation before the learned AO confirming the fact that they had indeed advanced loans to the assessee out of their disclosed sources traceable to disclosed bank account. Hence, genuineness of the transactions are proved. They have sufficient bank balances to advance monies to the assessee and hence credit worthiness of the lenders are also proved for both the parties. Since the assessee has proved all the three ingredients, there cannot be any amount which could be treated as unexplained cash credit, warranting any addition under Section 68 of the Act. Hence, we have no hesitation to confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition on merits. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.