The DCIT, Central Circle, Rajahmundry V. Dr Penmetsa Ramalakshmi, Tanuku

ITA 208/VIZ/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 50116 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TH L PETER
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 206 TO 212 /VIZAG/ 20 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000 - 01 TO 2006 - 07 DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE RAJAHMUNDRY VS. DR. PENMETSA RAMA LAKSHMI TANUKU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.ABJPR 882 2 R APPELLANT BY: SHRI TH.L. PETER, CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA ORDER PER BENCH:- THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINS T THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2000-01 TO 2006-07 ON COMMON GROUNDS. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ASSAILE D MAINLY ON TWO GROUNDS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 TO 2005-06. IN A.Y. 200 6-07 ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ASSAILED ONLY ON ONE GROUND I.E. THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. IN OTHER APPEALS, ONE MORE GROUND WAS ALSO RAISED WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACC OUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS. SINCE THESE APP EALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDAT ED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD ARE TH AT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENCE AS WELL AS HOSPITAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 4.8.2005, FOLL OWING WHICH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND WHO IS ALSO A DOCTOR WERE EXAMINED BY THE SEARCH PARTY WITH REGARD TO THE REC EIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF TREATMENT GIVEN IN THEIR HOSPITAL KNOWN AS VIJAYA N URSING HOME. THE ASSESSEE IS A GYNECOLOGIST AND HER HUSBAND DR. P. V ITHAL RAJU IS A SURGEON. DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION DR. P. VITHAL RAJU HAS ADMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND THE INCOME WAS SHOWN ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 2 ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE RECORDS OF SURGERY WERE ALS O NOT COMPLETE AND ON THE BASIS OF DATAS FOUND THEREIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE NUMBER OF SURGERIES AND THE DELIVERIES UNDERTAKEN IN THE H OSPITAL. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO EXAMINED WITH REGARD TO THE PROFESSIONAL FEES CHARGED FOR THE NORMAL DELIVERY AS WELL AS CAESAREAN DELIVERIES AND IN HER STATEMENT SHE DEPOSED THAT FOR CAESAREAN ABOUT RS.4,000/- TO RS.5,000/- I S COLLECTED INCLUDING ALL CHARGES AND FOR NORMAL DELIVERY THEIR CHARGES ARE R S.1,200/- TO RS.1,500/-. THE EXPENSES OF DRUGS WERE ALSO EXPLAINED BY THE AS SESSEES. IT WAS STATED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE OF RS.1,000/- TO RS.500/- AN D FOR NORMAL DELIVERY IT WAS OF RS.400/- TO RS.500/-. 3. IN ORDER TO TEST CHECK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S SUMMONED ONE PATIENT SMT. NARAVA HEMALATHA WHOSE NAME APPEARED IN THE RE GISTER PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HUSBAND OF THE PATIENT WAS EXAMI NED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN HIS STATEMENT HE DEPOSED THAT EXPEND ITURE RS.3,000/- TOWARDS DELIVERY WAS PAID BY HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW. THIS AMOUN T OF RS.3,000/- INCLUDES ROOM RENT, DOCTOR CHARGES ETC. HE HAS ALSO DEPOSED THAT HIS OTHER CHILD WAS BORN ON 31.7.2002 THROUGH NORMAL DELIVERY AND AT TH AT TIME THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED AT RS.4,500/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THIS STATEMENT AS A SOLE BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE RECEIPTS FROM THE N ORMAL DELIVERY AND A CAESAREAN DELIVERY. ON THE BASIS OF THE INCOMPLETE RECORD OF DELIVERIES THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ESTIMATED THE NUMBER OF CASES OF DELIVERIES IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND HE ACCORDINGLY ESTIM ATED THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AS UNDER: YEAR NO. OF CASES DELIVERY NORMAL/SURGERY RATE AMOUNT TOTAL RECEIPTS PER ANNUM 1999-00 180 63 3,000 1,89,000 11,25,000 117 8,000 9,36,000 2000-01 180 63 3,000 1,89,000 11,25,000 117 8,000 9,36,000 2001-02 187 66 3,000 1,98,000 11,66,000 121 8,000 9,68,000 2002-03 180 63 3,000 1,89,000 11,25,000 117 8,000 9,36,000 2003-04 193 68 3,000 2,04,000 12,04,000 125 8,000 10,00,000 2004-05 188 66 3,000 1,98,000 11,74,000 122 8,000 9,76,000 ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 3 4. BESIDES THE A.O. HAS ALSO ESTIMATED THE RECEIPT FROM IN-PATIENTS OTHER THAN THE DELIVERY CASES. SINCE I.P. REGISTER (IN-P ATIENT REGISTER) ARE NOT MAINTAINED PROPERLY AND REGULARLY, IN ORDER TO VERI FY THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS BEING ADMITTED IN THE HOSPITAL THE A.O. HAS ESTIMAT ED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PATIENTS ADMITTED IN THE HOSPITAL ON THE BASIS OF T HE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE I.P. REGISTER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 21.2.2005 TO 25.7.2005 . DR. VITHAL RAJU WAS ALSO EXAMINED WITH REGARD TO THE CHARGES GENERALLY COLLE CTED BY HIM FOR SURGERIES UNDERTAKEN BY HIM. IN RESPONSE THERETO DETAILS OF CHARGES WERE EXPLAINED BY DR. P. VITHAL RAJU. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ESTIMATED THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS ADMITTED IN THE HOSPITAL DURING DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ON THE BASIS OF THE INCOMPLETE RECORD AND HE ACCORDINGLY E STIMATED THE RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES OTHER THAN THE DELIVERY CASES AT RS.8,16,000/- PER YEAR. 5. APART FROM THESE RECEIPTS ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ESTIMATED THE RECEIPT FROM THE OUT PATIENTS AT RS.1,07,520/- ON E STIMATE BASIS AND HE ACCORDINGLY MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS AS UNDISCL OSED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 TO 2004-05 AS UNDER: F.Y. DELIVERY CASES OTHER INPATIENT CASES O.P. CASES TOTAL RECEIPTS SHOWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME 1999 - 00 1125000 816000 107000 2048000 165371 18,82,629 2000 - 01 1125000 816000 107000 2048000 179320 18,68,680 2001 - 02 1166000 816000 107000 2089000 250946 18 , 38 , 054 2002 - 03 1125000 816000 107000 2048000 318150 17,29,850 2003 - 04 1204000 816000 107000 2127000 333225 17,93,775 2004 - 05 1174000 816000 107000 2097000 381210 17,15,790 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT WHILE ESTIMATING THE INCOME FROM PR OFESSION ON THE BASIS OF INCOMPLETE RECORD OF DELIVERY CASES (NORMAL AND CAE SAREAN), INPATIENTS OTHER THAN THE CAESAREAN AND OUT PATIENTS THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MEDICAL PRO FESSIONAL AND NOT A BUSINESS MAN AND IT IS NOT CORRECT TO ESTIMATE NUMB ER OF PATIENTS BY EVOLVING FORMULAE. HENCE RECEIPTS FROM PROFESSION CANNOT BE BASED ON ASSUMPTION ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 4 AND PRESUMPTIONS AS NOBODY CAN PREDICT REGULARITY I N THE HEALTH MATTERS. THE A.O. HAS HEAVILY RELIED ON SOME SEIZED MATERIAL SLIPS WHERE NO DATE IS MENTIONED AND IN SOME CASES THE AMOUNT/FEES COLLECT ION LYING WITH THE STAFF ARE NOT NOTED. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BEFORE THE CI T(A) THAT SEIZED MATERIAL WAS NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEES BEFORE USING THE SAME AGAINST IT AND TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THE DELIVERY CHARGES A.O. HAS MADE A HUGE ESTIMATE BASI NG ON A STATEMENT MADE BY THE HUSBAND OF THE PATIENT BY NAME NARAVA HEMALA THA. WHILE RELYING ON THE SAID STATEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPL ETELY OVERLOOKED THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE CASE AND TO FOLLOW THE PRINCI PLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEES AND HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE HUSBAND OF THE PATIENT HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE PAYMEN TS WERE MADE BY HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE HUSBAND OF THE PATIENT MR. KRISHNA HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THEREIN THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT IS PAID TO THE DOCTOR HAS BEEN PAID BY HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW. THE MOTHER OF THE PATIENT HAS ALSO GIVEN AN AFFIDAV IT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES. IT WAS FURTHER CONTEN DED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WITH REGARD TO TH E SUPPRESSION OF FEES COLLECTED FROM THE PATIENTS. HE HAS ALSO FILED NUM BER OF AFFIDAVITS OF DIFFERENT PATIENTS WHO CLEARLY DEPOSED THAT THE DELIVERY OF T HE CHILD TOOK PLACE IN THE HOSPITAL OF THE ASSESSEES AND THEY HAVE PAID THE FE ES DISCLOSED IN THE RECORD. ALL THESE AFFIDAVITS WERE OVERLOOKED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND HE HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FROM THE DELIVE RIES (NORMAL & CAESAREAN) EVEN WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE EXPENDITU RES WERE ALSO INCURRED WITH RESPECT TO THE UNRECORDED DELIVERIES. THEREFO RE, ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AT HIGH PITCH AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 7. WITH REGARD TO THE INCOME FROM INPATIENTS OTHER THAN THE DELIVERY CASES AND OUT PATIENTS IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME WITHOUT TAKING INT O ACCOUNT THE LOCAL CONDITIONS AS THE HOSPITAL IS IN THE MOFFUSIL AREA AND THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPT CANNOT BE SAME ON ALL DAYS. ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 5 NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ANY INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT THERE WAS A SUPPRESSION OF INCOME. THE ESTIMATION OF NUMBER OF PATIENTS ADMITTED IN TH E HOSPITAL WAS ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS FURTHER CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE HAS CREATED ASSETS OUT OF THE SO CALLED IN COME TAX THAT HAVE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED. SIMILARLY, NO EXCESS CASH BALANCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF INCOME IS CALLED FOR. TH E CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND BEI NG CONVINCED WITH IT HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTE D HEREUNDER: AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E AND ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE, T HE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS ARE MADE AND DECISIONS ARE TAKEN:- CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS INTERESTI NG NOTE THAT THE ENTIRE SET OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2005-06, PRECEDING THE YEAR OF SEARCH, HAVE BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATE BASI S AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DATA THAT IS AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. NE ITHER THE INVESTIGATION TEAM DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, NOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENTS HAD ANY CREDIBLE DATA TO PRO CEED WITH THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE MANNER WHICH HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN . WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS UTILIZED PAR TIAL DATA AVAILABLE TO HIM FROM DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS 1999-2000 ONWARDS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE ARRIVED AT AVERAGE NUMBER OF PATIENTS WHICH COULD H AVE BEEN SEEN BY APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR AND BY ADOPTING AN APPROX IMATE RATE, HE WORKED OUT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED L AW THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF CASES FALLING UNDER THE SEARCH & SEIZURE PROVISIONS ARE TO BE MADE BASED ON EVIDENCES GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND DURING THE FURTHER INVESTIGATION, RATHER THAN ON THE ESTIMATES WHICH A RE, AT BEST, GUESS WORK OF WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2005-06 AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND ESTIMATING THE INCOMES AS DISCUSSED A BOVE. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THESE ESTIMATES BASED ON GUESS WORK AND AFTER UTILIZING THE STATEMENT RECORD ED FROM ONE PATIENT NAMELY SMT. NARAVA HEMALATHA AND ONE ACCOUNTANT N AMELY SRI PADAVALA ADI VENKATA VARA PRASAD BEHIND THE BACK OF THE APP ELLANT AND WITHOUT GIVING THE APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THESE WITNESSES. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT ALSO POI NTED OUT THAT NOT ONLY DID THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAIL TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNIT Y OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, BUT ALSO USED THE STATEMENTS AGAINST THE APPELLANT BY A RRIVING AT ESTIMATES BASED ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 6 ON THOSE DEPOSITIONS WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO REBUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED. THIS LED NOT ONLY TO DENIAL OF JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT BUT ALSO RESULTE D IN HIGH PITCHED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ESTIMATE BASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2005-06. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT POI NTED OUT THAT EVEN THOUGH THE PATIENT ON RECORD WAS SMT. NARAVA HEMALA THA, THE STATEMENT WAS TAKEN AND RECORDED FROM HER HUSBAND, WHO COULD NOT HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FEES ETC., PAID AS THE SAME HAD BEEN PAID BY TH E PATIENTS MOTHER I.E. MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE DEPONENT. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE HUSBAND OF THE PATIENT COULD NOT HAVE MADE A PROPER DEPOSITION ACC EPTABLE IN LAW IN THIS CASE. IN ADDITION TO THESE AVERMENTS, THE AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEY HAD FILED AFFIDAVITS FROM NINE PATIENTS DEPOSING AB OUT THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN THE HOSPITAL AS ALSO THE FEES CHARGED FOR VARIOU S PROCEDURES AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE SILENT ON THIS ISSUE. IT APP EARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EXAMINE THESE PERSONS EVEN THOUGH T HE AFFIDAVITS ARE DEPOSITIONS UNDER OATH, STATING SOME FACTS AND IT W AS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THOSE PERSONS TO CONFI RM OR DENY THE VERACITY OF THOSE STATEMENTS. THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE AFFIDAVITS AND THE CONTENTS ON OATH HAS LED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS SUFFERING FROM THE SAID INFIRMITY. THE ESTIMATES THAT ARE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN RESPECT OF FEES FROM DELIVERY CASES, AS ALSO IN RESPECT OF FEE S FROM PATIENTS ARE CONSTANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2005-06. THIS IS SO EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TREATED BY THE DOCTOR. THIS IS NOT CORRECT, AS THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS VARY FROM MO NTH TO MONTH AND YEAR TO YEAR AS ALSO THE AMOUNTS OF FEE CHARGED BY THE DOCT OR FOR TREATMENT OF VARIOUS CONDITIONS. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN JUDICIAL P RONOUNCEMENTS, JUST AS THE BUSINESS IS LIKELY INCREASE ON YEARLY BASIS SO ALSO IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT DOCTORS PRACTICE IS LIKELY TO GO UP IN LATER YEARS IN CASE THE PATIENTS ARE SATISFIED WITH THE TREATMENT OF THE DOCTOR. THIS E STIMATE OF FEES DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CHARGED BY THE APPELLANT IS ON THE BASIS OF ONE STATEMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE AND ONE UNDATED PAPER IN RESPECT OF ONE PA TIENT FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. I AM OF THE OPINION, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO BASE ESTIMATES FOR THE ENTIRE ACCOUNTING YEARS ON THE FLIMSY GROUNDS AND THAT TOO WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE ESTIMATION OF ADDITIONS, HE PROPOSED TO MAKE. IT IS VERY INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07, WHICH IS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELATED TO THE YEAR OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2007 HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT FROM PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT S AT RS.2,89,020/- AND HAS ALSO NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ONLY ADDITION HE HAS MADE IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 IS FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,02,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LAW WITHDRAWALS WHICH ADDITION IS ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DID THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PART-TIME ACCOUNTANT ON THE BASIS OF WHOSE STATEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ALL T HE EARLIER YEARS AND ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 7 PROCEEDED TO MAKE ESTIMATED ADDITIONS, WAS EMPLOYED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN JULY, 2005 FOR THE PURPOSE OF WRI TING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THAT YEAR. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FELT THAT THE ACCOUNTANT HAD NOT WRITTEN AND MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HE HAD MUC H MORE JUSTIFICATION AND REASON TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND FIND OUT A REASONABLE BASIS TO ARRIVE AT THE CO RRECT INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. BUT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE NOT TO DO SO AND ACCEPTED THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AT RS.2,89,020/-. AT THE SAM E TIME, HE HAS MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.16 LAKHS TO RS.18 LAKHS EACH FOR TH E EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH HE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCES TO REJECT THE BOOK RESULTS. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSMENTS DONE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER LACK CONSISTENCY AND THE APPROACH ITSELF IS QUESTIONABLE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING ACCEPTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WHICH IS THE YEAR O F SEARCH, HAS NO REASON TO FIND THE BOOKS DEFECTIVE IN EARLIER YEARS AND TH AT TOO WITHOUT ANY BASIS. CARRYING OUT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS AGAINST AN ASSESSEE IS THE BIGGEST AND MOST POWERFUL TOOL AT THE DISPOSAL OF T HE DEPARTMENT. IN THE APPELLANTS CASE, EVEN AFTER CARRYING OUT A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT AT HER RESIDENCE AND HOSPITAL AS ALSO AT THE PREMISES OF HER FATHER, THE INVESTIGATION WING AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WE RE UNABLE TO DISCOVER ANY UNACCOUNTED CASH, JEWELLERY AND OTHER ASSETS WHEREI N UNACCOUNTED INCOME WAS INVESTED. IF THE APPELLANT WAS ACTUALLY EARNIN G SUCH A LARGE INCOME, AS ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, NO PROOF OF ITS EXISTENCE WAS FOUND. THIS LEADS ONE TO BELI EVE THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT IN FACT EARN SUCH INCOME AS OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND REFLECTED IN SOME ASSET OR THE OTHER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE ASSESS MENTS FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY CREDIBLE DATA, THE AS SESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN RESORTING TO ESTIMATING THE INCOME, AFTER REJECTING THE AUDITED BOOK RESULTS OF EARLIER YEARS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, OVER SO MANY YEARS IS NOT TENABLE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONFRONTED THE APPELL ANT ABOUT THE MODE OF ASSESSMENTS THAT HE HAS PROPOSED FOR THE EARLIER YE ARS, NOR HAD HE INVITED THE OBJECTIONS IF ANY, OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSES SING OFFICERS DECISION TO IGNORE THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE AFFIDAVITS FILE D BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DEPOSITIONS, FURTHER WEAKENS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AND ADDED TO ALL THIS, THE FACT THAT NO INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL/ASSETS RELATABLE TO ESTIMATED UNACCOUNTED INCOME HAVING BEEN FOUND, LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE PURELY ON ARBIT RARY BASIS. ALSO, THE FACT THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REG ARDING NON-MAINTENANCE OF PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NOT RECORDING FULL INC OME ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PART-TIME ACCOUNTANT RELATED TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE BOOK RESULTS FOR THIS YEAR WITHOUT ANY QUESTION, HE HAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED A NY BASIS HE MIGHT HAVE HAD FOR REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ESPECIALLY WHEN THE RETURNS FOR THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS HAD BEE N FILED IN THE NORMAL COURSE ALONG WITH AUDITED RESULTS MUCH BEFORE THE S EARCH OPERATION TOOK PLACE IN THE APPELLANTS PREMISES. ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 8 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, AFTER CONSIDERING T HE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND SETTLED LA W IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT IN SEARCH & SEIZURE CASES, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2005-06 ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS ARE DELETED. 8. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. D.R. BESIDES PLACING HEAVY RELIANCE UPON TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INCRIMIN ATING MATERIALS WERE FOUND ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND WERE EX AMINED AND DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR EXAMINATION, THE HUSBAND OF THE ASE SSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE NOT MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A ND THE INCOME WAS OFFERED ON ESTIMATE BASIS. WHATEVER RECORD WAS SEI ZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT WAS INCOMPLETE AND COMPLETE DETAILS OF T HE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AND THE SURGERIES UNDERTAKEN IN THE HOSPITAL CANNOT BE WORKED OUT. THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH NUMBER OF DELIVERIES (NORMAL OR CAES AREAN) WERE ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. HE HAS EXAMINED THE PATIENTS ABOUT PAYMEN T MADE TO THE ASSESSEE OR THE HOSPITAL AND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS IN DELIVERY CASES. THE ESTIMA TION OF RECEIPTS FROM OTHER SURGERIES WERE ALSO ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF THE S TATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES AND THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A COMPLETE RECORD THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO ESTIMATE THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM INDOOR AND OUTDOOR PATIENTS. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS WIT HOUT REALIZING THAT THE ESTIMATION DONE BY THE A.O. IS BASED ON THE STATEME NT OF THE ASSESSEES, HER HUSBAND AND THE SEIZED MATERIAL. 9. IN OPPUGNITION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED ITS CONTENTIONS AS RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A). BESIDES P LACING HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFESSIONA L CHARGES WITHOUT ANY BASIS. WHATEVER MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH, IT WAS INCOMPLETE AND DUMB MATERIAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO SOME OF THE SEIZED DOCUMEN T WITH THE SUBMISSIONS ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 9 WHATEVER PROFESSIONAL CHARGES ARE DISCLOSED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL THAT SUPPORTS THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSB AND WITH REGARD TO THE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES RECEIVED IN CASE OF DELIVERIES AND OTHER SURGERIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NEITHER THE UNEXPLAINED CASH NOR THE UNEXPLA INED ASSETS WERE FOUND. HAD IT BEEN A CASE OF SUPPRESSED RECEIPT, THERE WOU LD HAVE BEEN SOME EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT OF THE SUPPR ESSED RECEIPT IN SOME ASSETS. ADMITTEDLY, NO UNEXPLAINED ASSET WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE INCOMPLETE S EIZED MATERIAL, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED OR ASSUMED THAT THERE WAS SUPPRESSED PROFE SSIONAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE A.O. UNDER THIS HEAD IS NOT CALLED FOR. 10. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SOME SLIPS CONTAINING CERTAIN ENTR IES WERE FOUND. THE COPIES OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL IS ALSO PLACED BEFORE US AND FROM ITS CAREFUL PERUSAL, WE FIND THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL CONTAINS DIFFERENT ENTRIES BUT FROM THESE ENTRIES IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED OR ASSUMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM THE PATIENTS WHICH WERE NOT REC ORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. MOST OF THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINS CERTAIN FIGURES AND IN SOME DOCUMENTS THE ESTIMATE OF TREATMENT WAS GIVEN. ONE DOCUMENT AT PG.NO.13 OF THE COMPILATION FILED BY THE REVENUE CO NTAINS ENTRIES WITH REGARD TO THE RENT, FEE, DRUGS, THEATRE CHARGES AND THE TO TAL AMOUNT WAS SHOWN IN THIS DOCUMENT WAS RS.5,100/-. IN THIS DOCUMENT, FE E, DRUGS AND THEATRE CHARGES WERE SHOWN AS RS.3,400/- AND TOTAL SUM WAS SHOWN AS RS.5,100/-. MEANING THEREBY, THESE CHARGES RELATES TO SOME SURG ICAL TREATMENT GIVEN TO THE PATIENTS. BUT FROM THIS DOCUMENT IT IS NOT CLE AR WHETHER THESE CHARGES WERE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A CAESAREAN DELI VERY OR FOR SOME OTHER SURGERIES. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED BY THE A.O. IN WHICH ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS STATED TH AT FOR CAESAREAN DELIVERY, THE CHARGES ARE BETWEEN RS.4,000/- TO RS.5000/-. I N THE LIGHT OF THIS STATEMENT IF THIS DOCUMENT IS READ THE INFERENCE GO ES IN FAVOUR OF THE ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 10 ASSESSEE AS THE TOTAL CHARGES COLLECTED WAS RS.5,10 0/- ONLY. ONE MORE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE AT PG.NO.16 CONTAINS THE ENTRIES RELATING TO RENT, FEE, DRUGS, THEATRE CHARGES. THE FEE DRUG AND THEATRE C HARGES ARE SHOWN TO BE RS.4,650/- AND RENT AS RS.1,000/- AND TOTAL COMES T O RS.5,650/-. THIS DOCUMENT IS UNDATED AND IT ALSO SUPPORTS THE STATEM ENT OF THE ASSESSEES THAT CAESAREAN DELIVERY CHARGES ARE BETWEEN RS.4,000/- T O RS.5000/-. LIKEWISE OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE PLACED BEFORE US AND FROM ITS P ERUSAL IT IS NOT CLEAR FOR WHAT TREATMENT THE ESTIMATE WAS GIVEN OR THE CHARGE S WERE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEES. MOREOVER IN A MEDICAL TREATMENT A UNIFO RM FORMULA OR A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS CANNOT BE ADOPTED. THE EXPEN DITURE ALWAYS DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF AILMENTS, DURATION AND THE TREAT MENT GIVEN BY THE DOCTORS. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED DO CUMENT, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ESTIMATE THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEES. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL SOME RECEIPTS W ERE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEES WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. 11. THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND WERE EXAMINED WITH REGARD TO THE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES FOR SURGERIES AND OTHER TREATM ENT GIVEN TO THE PATIENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF DELIVERIES (N ORMAL & CAESAREAN) UNDERTAKEN IN HER HOSPITAL BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ESTIMATED THE NUMBER OF DELIVERIES IN A YEAR ON THE BASIS OF PART IALLY MAINTAINED RECORD AND ESTIMATED THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE HUSBAND OF ONE OF THE PATIENT SMT. NAR AVA HEMALATHA IN WHICH HE MADE A STATEMENT THAT HE HAS PAID A SUM OF RS.3, 000/- TOWARDS NORMAL DELIVERY OF HIS DAUGHTER ON 30 TH JUNE, 2005 TO THE ASSESSEES HOSPITAL VIJAYA NURSING HOME. HE FURTHER STATED THAT IN EARLIER OC CASION WHEN HIS SON WAS BORN ON 31 ST JULY, 2002 THROUGH NORMAL DELIVERY HE HAS PAID THE CHARGES OF RS.4,500/-. GENERALLY, THE CHARGES IN THE HOSPITAL OF A PARTICULAR TREATMENT IS BEING INCREASED BUT IN THIS CASE THE SECOND TIME DE LIVERY INVOLVES THE LESSER CHARGES. EVEN FROM THIS STATEMENT, IT IS CLEAR THA T CHARGES FOR THE TREATMENT CANNOT REMAIN THE SAME. IT DEPENDS UPON VARIOUS FA CTORS EVEN IF THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED. IN HIS STAT EMENT, THE HUSBAND OF THE PATIENT HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE EXPENDI TURE WERE INCURRED BY HIS ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 11 MOTHER-IN-LAW I.E. THE MOTHER OF THE PATIENT AND DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE PATIENT AND HER MOTHER HAVE FILED THE AFFIDAVITS STATING THEREIN THAT THEY HAVE MADE THE PAYMENT OF CHARGES AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEES. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS FILED AS MANY AS 9 AFFIDAVITS OF DIFFERENT PATIENTS WHO HAVE DEPOSED THAT THEY HAVE MADE THE PAYMENT TO THE HOSPITAL OR THE ASSESSEE THE SAME AMOUNT AS WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RECORDS. THESE AFFIDAVITS WERE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCO UNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ESTIMATING THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OF THE A SSESSEES. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANYTH ING ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS INVESTED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN ACQUIRING CERTAIN ASSETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WHATEVER ASSETS WERE FOUND THEY WERE ALREADY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, NO UNEXPLAINED CASH WAS ALSO FOUND. UNDER THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PRESUME THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED UND ISCLOSED PROFESSIONAL CHARGES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIA L FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT I N CASE OF SEARCH ADDITIONS CAN ONLY BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AN D NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN RECEIP TS DURING A PARTICULAR PERIOD WITHOUT REALIZING THE FACT THAT IN MEDICAL LINE NUM BER OF PATIENTS CANNOT BE ESTIMATED FOR A PARTICULAR TYPE OF TREATMENT. THE MEDICAL EXPENDITURE ALWAYS DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF AILMENT AND ITS DURATION AND ALSO NATURE OF TREATMENT GIVEN TO THE PATIENT. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ESTIMATION OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS ADOPTED BY THE A.O. IN DIF FERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 12. WE HOWEVER EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND WE FIND THAT HE HAS EXAMINED EACH AND EVERY ASPECT IN THIS REGARD BEFOR E DELETING THE ADDITIONS. SINCE NO INFIRMITY IS POINTED OUT IN HIS ORDER, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 13. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH RE GARD TO THE LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. FROM THE DETAILS IT IS NOTICED THAT A SSESSEE HAS SHOWN DRAWINGS/WITHDRAWALS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FROM RS.5,000/- TO RS.6,000/- ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 12 P.M. DURING THE YEAR 2000-01 AND 2003-04. IN A.Y. 2004-05, HE HAS SHOWN THE DRAWINGS AT RS.1,19,035/- AND IN A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 AS RS.96,000/- P.A. THE A.O. HAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TWO CH ILDREN AND HIS SON IS STUDYING IN THE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND DAUGHTER IS IN HIGH SCHOOL AND THEIR AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER MONTH ON THEM WAS AROUND RS .6,000/-. THEREFORE, THE WITHDRAWALS WERE LESS AND HE ESTIMATED THE REAS ONABLE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AND MADE THE ADDITIO N OF 50% OF DIFFERENCE AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE DETAILS OF THE DIS ALLOWANCES ARE AS UNDER:- 14. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE HAS JOINED THE MEDICAL COLLEGE DURING THE MONTH OF AUGU ST, 2006 I.E. AFTER THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. IN SUPPORT OF THAT H E HAS FILED CERTIFICATE FROM THE PRINCIPAL OF MEDICAL COLLEGE. THE CIT(A) RE-EX AMINED THE ISSUE AND BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS. 15. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US WITH THE SUBMISSIO N THAT WHATEVER HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS WERE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEES INCLUD ING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON HER CHILDREN. THE LD. D.R. HAS CONTEND ED THAT WHILE DELETING THE ADDITIONS CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE STA TUS OF THE ASSESSEES AND THE REASONABLE EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE TO BE INCURRED . HE PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 16. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED A R ELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF HIS RET URNS FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y. EXPENSES ESTIMATED WITHDRAWAL S SHOWN BY BOTH WIFE & HUSBAND DIFFERENCE 50% SHARE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXP. 2000 - 01 180000 56133 123867 61934 2001 - 02 200000 71361 128639 64320 2002 - 03 220000 60843 159157 79579 2003 - 04 240000 61323 178677 89399 2004 - 05 260000 119035 140965 70483 2005 - 06 280000 96000 184000 92000 2006 - 07 300000 96000 204000 102000 ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 13 ASSESSMENT YEARS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE FURTHER CONTENTED THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WA S FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEES WAS NOT SUFFICIEN T TO MEET THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION UNDER THIS HEA D IS CALLED FOR. 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE DETAILS OF WITHD RAWALS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEES AND HER HUSBAND. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND ARE THE DOCTORS AND ARE HAVING A DIFFERENT STATUS IN TH E SOCIETY. WHATEVER WITHDRAWALS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEES IT APPEARS TO BE AT LOWER SIDE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT THIS ISSUE WAS NEVER EXAMINED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND THE RETURN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED U/S 14 3(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD INCOM E EXPENSES BUT THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE A.O. APPEARS TO BE ON HIGHER SIDE. TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE ESTIMATE THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT R S.1,20,000/- P.A. IN A.Y. 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 AND AT RS.1,50,000/- P.A. IN A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06. WE FURTHER ESTIMATE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE AT RS.1.80,000/- P.A. IN A.Y. 2006-07. SINCE THE HOUS EHOLD WITHDRAWAL ARE TO BE MADE BY THE HUSBAND AND WIFE BOTH, WE THEREFORE HOL D THAT 50% OF THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT WOULD BE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE AN D BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE ES. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTE R TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO RECOMPUTE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED HO USEHOLD EXPENSES. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8.4.2011 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 8 TH APRIL, 2011 ITA NO.206 TO 212 OF 10 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, T ANUKU 14 COPY TO 1 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJAHMUNDRY 2 DR. PENMETSA RAMALAKSHMI, W/O DR. P. VITHAL RAJU, V IJAYA NURSING HOME, D.NO.33-8-2, BABU GARI STREET, TANUKU, W.G. DIST. 3 THE CI T, RAJAHMUNDRY 4 THE CIT (A) , RAJAHMUNDRY 5 THE D R, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM