TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26.06.1996. 2. On 29.04.2008, a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court has admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the view of the Tribunal deleting the two additions of Rs.40,58,000/- and Rs.20,38,274/- aggregating to Rs.60,96,274/- is legally justified and is in accordance to the law." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a practicing medical doctor having different sources of income such as income from agricultural activities, medical profession and pathology etc. On 25.09.1996, a search at the residential premises of the assessee as well as a survey under section 133-A of the Act simultaneously was conducted at the business premises situated at Tulsidas Marg, Lucknow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess premises of the assessee, a valid estimate was made by the A.O. Regarding the lease of Charak X-Ray, he submits that the details of the business activity and agreement were not known. The profit rate of 45% was rightly estimated by the A.O. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the amendment incorporated by the Finance Act, 2002, in the definition of "Undisclosed Income" under section 158 BC of the Act, which has enlarged the meaning of undisclosed income and, as such, now the block assessment of undisclosed income is to be based on the evidence found in search and the material or information gathered in post - search inquiries made on the basis of evidence found in search. He has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee himself till the Assessment Year 1987-88 and therefore, till that period, the income was declared by the assessee as his own income. However, by means of the lease agreement dated 16.04.1993, the said X-ray unit was given by the assessee on lease. The assessee thereafter, declared the lease income in his return, which was accepted by the Department. He also submits that the additions were made on estimate basis, which is a question of fact and the same cannot be challenged before the Hon'ble High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. For this purpose, he has relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases:- 1. CIT vs. Khushlal Chand Nirmal Kumar; (2003) 183 CTR (MP) 503; 2. CIT vs. S. Ajeet Kumar; (2008) 300 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out. Therefore, in this regard also, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order is hereby sustained. 12. Needless to mention that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. S. Ajit Kumar; (2008) 300 ITR 152 (Mad), it was observed that:- "in the course of survey operation, the Revenue found that the assessee had paid cash over and above the amount paid by cheque. It is an indisputable fact that the cost of construction and interior decoration through M/s. Elegant Constructions, was known to the Department even before the date of search. Admittedly, no material was found during the course of search operation in respect of amount said to be paid in cash over and above the cheque payment. Hence, the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence, as reduced by the aggregate of the total income, or as the case may be, as increased by the aggregate of the losses of such previous years.' A mere reading of the above provision clearly indicates that the sentence "such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer & quot; cannot be bisected or taken in isolation for the purpose of computation. Such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer, should as per the section relatable to such evidence. The word "such" used as a prefix to the word "evidence" assumes much significance, in this provision, as it indicates only the evidence found, as a result of search or requisit....