9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee's standing was hardly of about one year. Search and seizure operations were carried out at the premises of the assessee on 30th Jan., 1990. During search operations certain papers and diary were found. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee had claimed an expenditure of Rs. 38,000 on purchase of medicines. The AO noted that the total of the expenditure as noted in the diary comes to Rs. 32,128. It also includes the expenditure of Rs. 1,866 for which the bill appeared in the name of the assessee's husband, who is also a doctor by profession. Hence the AO allowed the expenditure only to the tune of Rs. 30,262 and made an addition of Rs. 7,738. The assessee appealed before the Dy. CIT(A). He found that the total of the expenditure r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exact. Looking to all these facts, I am of the opinion that the estimate made by the Dy. CIT(A) is reasonable and calls for no interference. 6. The next ground relates to the relief allowed by the Dy. CIT(A) out of miscellaneous expenses. The assessee had shown expenses at Rs. 37,500 under various heads. The assessee was running her clinic at her residence. The assessing officer, therefore, disbelieved the assessee's version about expenses and allowed an expense of Rs. 12,000 only resulting in an addition of Rs. 25,500. 7. In the first appeal, it was submitted for the assessee that the expenditure claimed by the assessee is reasonable and not excessive. Considering the submissions of the assessee, the Dy. CIT(A) allowed the following ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration. Hence, it is rejected. 12. In the result the appeal is dismissed. C.O. No. 94/Ind/1993 13. In this cross-objection, the assessee objects to the disallowance of Rs. 3,000 from the claim for the purchase of medicines. The issue has already been dealt with in the appeal filed by the Revenue. In my opinion, the estimate made by the Dy. CIT(A) is appropriate and as such this ground is rejected. 14. In the next ground, objection is taken to the disallowance of Rs. 7,200 from the claim of expenses. As already noted in the Revenue's appeal the Dy. CIT(A) has sustained the disallowance of Rs. 1,600 out of stationery and journal expenses and Rs. 700 out of repairs expenses. The expenditure was claimed by estimate. Proper vouchers w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. The arguments advanced by the parties are the same as in the appeals pertaining to the asst. yr. 1989-90. After considering the submissions advanced by the parties, I am of the opinion that the estimate of the expenses as made by the Dy. CIT(A) is appropriate. 20. Ground No. 2 of the appeal relates to the misc. expenses. In the first appeal, the Dy. CIT(A) has allowed all the expenses claimed by the assessee except sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 1,000 out of repairs/maintenance expenses. After considering the submissions advanced by the parties, I am of the opinion that the estimate of expenses made by the Dy. CIT(A) is appropriate. 21. The next ground relates to the addition made on account of cash found during the search operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere shown at Rs. 98,000. The AO estimated such receipts at Rs. 1,05,000. In the first appeal, the Dy. CIT(A) has estimated such receipts at Rs. 1 lakh. It is the contention of the assessee that professional receipts shown by the assessee should have been accepted. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has supported the order of the Dy. CIT(A). 27. Having considered the submissions advanced by the parties, I am of the opinion that the gross receipts shown by the assessee cannot be said to be on the lower side. In the immediately preceding year, the gross receipts were estimated at Rs. 96,100. I, therefore, direct that the gross receipt as shown by the assessee should be accepted. 28. In ground No. 2, objection is tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartmental Representative has argued that the deduction claimed cannot be allowed because the investment was made out of borrowed funds. 32. I have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that income of the assessee chargeable to tax during the year under consideration was adequate to make the aforesaid investment. Since the sum of Rs. 15,000 was seized by the Department, the assessee had no liquid funds for the purpose and she had borrowed money from her husband. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the investment made cannot be attributed to the income chargeable to tax. In my opinion, the deduction has been wrongly denied to the assessee and I hold accordingly. 33. In the result the cross-objection stand partly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
