2001 (4) TMI 738

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essed. 3. Regarding the addition of Rs. 2,59,187, the brief facts are that assessee is a doctor by profession and is an Eye Specialist. During the year under consideration, the assessee purchased, 101 Intra Ocular Lens (IOL) and it was stated that 16 units of this IOL were used in regard to operation of different persons. It was further stated that the assessee is a visiting doctor in Mahindra Hospital, where he operated operations and 16 IOL were used in operations. It was further stated that assessee has performed 40 operations of which the list was prepared. It was further stated that 10 units of IOL were shown as consumed by showing cash receipts. In this way, total units of IOL were shown at 66 and the balance 35 IOL were told that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... He further placed reliance on the decision of Dr. D.P. Bhattacharjee v. ACIT, reported in 64 ITD 335 . It was further stated that at the most Assessing Officer can disallow the purchase of the lenses, but he cannot assume that the lenses were used for the purpose of operation. No evidence or any material was found which establishes that assessee has performed any operation, which were not shown by him. It was further stated that it is wrong that assessee has used only 38 IOL units; whereas he has consumed 66 IOL, and the receipt of 66 IOL were shown by assessee in its profit & loss account. The attention of the Bench was drawn on the list enclosed in the paper book, which was filed before the Assessing Officer as well as before Commissione....