9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 2000/- per case, on the basis of cash memo seized for broken period running from 1st April, 1997 to 21st October, 1997. For this broken period the total receipt comes to ₹ 10,20,600/- and the total number of cases were 541 and, therefore, average comes to ₹ 2000/- per patient. Thus, the rate which was found out by the Assessing Officer in the year, 1997 has also been made applicable in the year 1988-89 and, that too, on the presumed number of patients. This is not permissible in the eyes of law. The total calculation of receipts of the respondent-assessee, which worked out at ₹ 11,48,600/- is absolutely a baseless calculation. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Appeal. No. 24 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2015 - D. N. Patel And Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Roshan, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Mahendra Choudhary, Adv, Mr. Amrita Sinha, Adv JUDGMENT Per D N Patel, J 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, against the judgment and order dated 13th April, 2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Circuit Bench, Ranchi in I.T. (SS) No. 13/Pat/2004 for the block ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s cash-memos and registers etc. are concerned, the said amount was inclusive of other payments and also the payments towards the medicine. Against the aforesaid order passed by the CIT (Appeal), an appeal was preferred by this appellant before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. This appeal was dismissed by ITAT vide order dated 13th April, 2006 and, therefore, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant in which the following substantive questions of law have been raised. (i) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) who has decided an addition of ₹ 22,97,200/- added as undisclosed income by the A.O. Based on seized materials marked as TKS-1 to TKS-12 and T.K.S.-33, and whether the upholding of the order of the CIT(A) by the ITAT was on proper appreciation of evidence found during the course of search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the deletion of other additions amounting to ₹ 2,39,967/- was based on proper appreciation of evidence? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r those two years estimated patients were considered as 1000 per annum, as per the order of Assessing Officer. Thus, figure of the total patients came to 5743 and looking to the total receipt of ₹ 10,20,600/- on the basis of cash memo seized for the broken period from 1st April, 1997 to 21st October, 1997 i.e. for the period of six months and 21 days and for 541 cases recorded in the register, average per patient approximately ₹ 2000/- must have been received by the respondent and this is how the calculation is made for the patients of the block period and the total receipt calculated by Assessing Officer for the block period as well as for the broken period is at ₹ 1,14,86,000/- and profit is considered at the rate of 20%, which comes to ₹ 22,97,200/- and this amount is added back to the income of the assessee. It is submitted that for the assessment year 1989-90 the total receipt from the seized documents comes to ₹ 1,55,445/- and, the assessee has shown ₹ 19565/-in her income-tax return. Thus, from the seized registers and from the income tax return, the difference comes to ₹ 56,880/-. This amount is added to the income of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 56800/-for the assessment year 1989-90 is concerned, it has been rightly appreciated by the CIT(Appeals) and ITAT that the amount paid by the patients is inclusive of the payment made to others for medicines etc. Whatever is paid by the patients is not an income of the respondent-assessee. Same is the logic regarding the addition for assessment year 1990-91 at ₹ 28826/- as well as for addition at ₹ 74341/- for assessment year 1992-93. It is thus, submitted that this appeal may not be entertained by this Court, because additions cannot be made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of presumption and surmises and without any basis of facts, for which their ought to have been evidence before the Assessing Officer. REASONS: 2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this appeal, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears that the Assessing Officer has committed an error in calculation of income of the respondent and the additions have been made on the basis of presumption and surmises and without any evidences on record. In the registers, which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
