TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent made against the assessee for the Assessment Year 1998-99 is not based on any material or evidence but on pure guess work unsupported with evidence. Then it is noted, the assessing officer himself allowed agricultural income ₹ 36,000/-. That head of income having been found present in the present case, and there being absence of any proof of assessee having engaged in private practice, disallowance of agricultural income also could not have been made in absence of any cogent material or evidence in that regard.- Decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 398 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2017 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1 lac. Admittedly, on 22.08.2000 the Income Tax Inspector visited the Gomti Hospital being run by a partnership firm of Smt. Pallavi Verma and Smt. Geeta Pandey spouses of the appellant and one Dr. P.P. Pandey respectively. Based on the observations made by the Income Tax Inspector in that survey, he submitted a report stating that at that time the assessee had been found to be engaged in private practice at the said medical establishment. By the assessment order dated 12.02.2001 the Assessing Officer made addition to the undisclosed income of the assessee from such private practice at ₹ 6,67,616/-. Also while making addition the Assessing Officer also disallowed the agricultural income of the assessee of ₹ 84,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural income and investment in moveable properites including bank balance and cash in hand was clearly from private practice. It is observed that the income-tax proceedings are required to be decided on balance of probabilities and preponderance of facts the criteria of ordinary intelligence and reasonable prudence is to be applied while examining the evidence for deciding the issue. Besides, the direct evidence being in the possession of the assessee, the assessee cannot be expected to reveal true facts prejudicial to his interest. The totality of facts and circumstances, therefore, prove that the assessee was doing private practice. The fact that the private practice was against departmental rules and he was drawing non-practicising allowa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of ₹ 5 lakh on account of income from private practice, including of undisclosed income declared as agricultural income by the assessee in its relevant return of income. The addition of ₹ 1,67,660/- is therefore deleted. The addition of ₹ 5 lakh is confirmed. The grounds of appeal to that extent are partly allowed. Learned counsel for the assessee Shri Suyash Agrawal submits that the entire material that had been relied upon by the revenue to make an addition on account of undisclosed income from private practice is referable solely to the period 22.08.2000 the survey itself having been conducted on 22.08.2000, i.e. during previous year referable to Assessment Year 2001-02 and not to the Assessment Year with 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifically disputed the fact of having indulged in private practice during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1998-99. In this regard vide para 5 of the aforesaid reply the assessee had stated that being a government servant he could not have indulged in private practice and that he had only examined certain patients on charitable consideration. He also disclosed that in the relevant year he had indulged in charitable activities with certain other organisations. Then, it is an undisputed fact between the parties that other than the survey report dated 11.09.2000 which refers to survey dated 22.08.2000, there is no material or evidence brought on record by the revenue authorities that may support their case of the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence but on pure guess work unsupported with evidence. Then it is noted, the assessing officer himself allowed agricultural income ₹ 36,000/-. That head of income having been found present in the present case, and there being absence of any proof of assessee having engaged in private practice, disallowance of agricultural income also could not have been made in absence of any cogent material or evidence in that regard. The questions of law are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly the addition made to the income of the assessee for the Assessment Year 1998-99 in respect of undisclosed income for private practice of ₹ 5 lacs is deleted. The appeal is accordingly allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
