TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant company derives income from medical profession from out door and indoor patients. Dr. Gulab Singh Sihag is the Managing Director of the company. The Assessing Officer noticed that in respect of in door and out door patients, no addresses were available in respect of patients in whose cases certain medical tests were conducted and no such details were filed. Thus the Assessing Officer concluded that verification of receipts is not possible. It is mentioned in the assessment order that addition of Rs. 1,50,000 was made to which the ld. Counsel for the assessee had agreed. 5. Before the ld. CIT(A) it was vehemently argued that appellant had never agreed for addition of Rs. 1,50,000. However, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....patients for examination. From the above, it is noted by us that in general practice, it is not possible to produce the patients as no record to complete address can be kept in this profession. Further the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the assessee agreed for addition of Rs. 1 lakh, however, in fact the addition was made of Rs. 1.50 lakh. In view of the above, we are of the view that no addition is called for on this account for the reason that the patients were not produced during assessment proceedings. Further there is no evidence that the appellant had agreed for addition of Rs. 1.50 lakhs. Therefore, we direct to delete the addition of Rs. 1.50 lakhs and thus ground No. 2 is allowed. 8. Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 pertain to additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. He further changed his statement that he was not aware about the company of Shri Gulab Singh Sihag. 9.1 Similarly Shri Karam Singh was also examined who is also an agriculturist and admitted that he owned 30 acres irrigated land. In addition to that his family members hold 70 killas of agricultural land. He admitted that he deposited Rs. 1 lakh as share application money with Shri Gulab Singh Sihag. But the amount is still outstanding. He has not obtained any receipt of deposit for Rs. 1 lakh as share application money. 9.2 Shri Gurdarshan Singh also deposited in his statement that he was not a relative of Shri Gulab Singh Sihag and he had neither received any share nor any share in profits. 10. The Assessing Officer mentioned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of ld. CIT(A) in regard to addition of Rs. 2 lakhs, Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 1 lakh from S/Shri Boota Singh, Gurdarshan Singh and Karam Singh. 12. Ground Nos. 6 & 8 are that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 26,225 and disallowance of Rs. 6,820 on account of 1/5th depreciation on car for personal use and personal use of telephone respectively whereas the car and telephone were exclusively used for business purposes. 13. After hearing the rival contentions, we agree with the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT v. Haryana Oxygen Ltd. 76 ITD 32 that the Directors and Company are two legal identities. The personal use of car and telephone of the company cannot be characterized as for non-business pur....