AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013 as the leading case. 2. The appellant is a doctor, who at the relevant time was employed in Fathima Hospital, Calicut. For the assessment year 2000-2001, the appellant filed return of income which was processed under Section 143(1) of the I.T.Act. A survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the hospital. During the survey, documents were unearthed disclosing payments of large amounts to doctors working in the hospital as professional charges for operations performed by them. In so far as the appellant is concerned, the impounded documents showed that in the assessment year 2000-2001, he was paid Rs. 40,40,014/-, which was not shown in the return of income filed by the appellant. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company. Assessees and the department were also directed to be given an opportunity to be heard. 4. The matter was accordingly considered by the Tribunal afresh and by the impugned order, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals upholding Annexure- 1 and Annexure -1A orders. It is in this background, these appeals are filed by the assessee, framing the following questions of law: A. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in disposing the appeal filed by the appellant without verifying records of the hospital company and order of assessment of the hospital company in spite of a specific directions by this Hon'ble Court? B. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e observations, being in the nature of obiter dicta, were not binding on the Tribunal and as the Tribunal has relied upon these observations, the order passed by the Tribunal is untenable. In support of this contention, the learned Senior counsel placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [AIR 2011 SC 3056]. 7. In the judgment mentioned above, the principle of obiter dicta was explained as opinions of a judge which do not embody the resolution or determination of the Court, and made without argument or full consideration of the point, are not the professed deliberate determinations of the judge himself. It was also explained that obiter dicta are opinions uttered by the way,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment order and made the observations which are extracted by the Tribunal in paragraph 8 of its order. These observations and findings, were essential for the disposal of the appeals and therefore embody resolution or determination of the dispute which arose in those appeals and were made on full consideration of the issues that arose in the appeals. Therefore, these findings were on the main issue raised before this Court and not on collateral subjects to be eschewed as obiter dicta. If that be so, when the appeals were re-considered, the Tribunal necessarily had to take note of the findings in Annexure - 3 judgment and its scope of enquiry was circumscribed by the findings therein. Therefore, this contention raised by the counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unted in the name of Dr.P.K.Asokan is Rs. 37,93,329/- and Dr.Nasser Yousuf is Rs. 21,06,918/-. So far as Dr.Anita Ashokan is concerned, even though she is a Gynaecologist counsel submits that she was fairly Junior Doctor and it is not known whether she was involved in Surgery. In any case, we do no know how a hospital accounted purchase of surgical consumables in the name of Doctors, who are not even Surgeons. Strangely, the assessing officer at Mumbai accepted all the contentions of the hospital treating the authorised representative's statement as gospel truth. In any case, we do not find any justification for the Tribunal to interfere with the assessment orders confirmed in appeal merely based on the finding of the assessing officer ....