AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 27th October, 1997, whereby, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, dated 30th October, 2003, has been upheld by the learned Tribunal. FACTUAL MATRIX: Search was carried out by the appellant at the Nursing Home of the respondent on 21st October, 1997. During search, several books of account and loose papers were seized. Narration of the seized documents reveals that few registers, which are marked as TKS-51, 52, 53 and 56 as also TKS 2, 5 & 4 were seized, which were pertaining to assessment year 1989- 90 for which addition of Rs. 56800/- was made by the Assessing Officer. Similarly, for the assessment year 1990-91 addition of Rs. 28826/- was made on the basis of cash memos, which were seized and ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hole calculation was made on the basis of presumption and surmises and so far as cash-memos and registers etc. are concerned, the said amount was inclusive of other payments and also the payments towards the medicine. Against the aforesaid order passed by the CIT (Appeal), an appeal was preferred by this appellant before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. This appeal was dismissed by ITAT vide order dated 13th April, 2006 and, therefore, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant in which the following substantive questions of law have been raised. "(i) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) who has decided an addition of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ITAT to the effect that the additions are not based on seized materials is correct in view of the fact that the ITAT failed to apply its mind nor perused the seized materials which is the basis of the assessment order? (vii) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ITAT before passing the impugned order ought to have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court decided in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. Vs H.M.E. Sujali H.M. Abdulali [90 ITR 271]?" While admitting the appeal by a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 19th November, 2013 the following substantial questions of law were formulated: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the income of the assessee. It is submitted that for the assessment year 1989-90 the total receipt from the seized documents comes to Rs. 1,55,445/- and, the assessee has shown Rs. 19565/-in her income-tax return. Thus, from the seized registers and from the income tax return, the difference comes to Rs. 56,880/-. This amount is added to the income of the assessee as an undisclosed income of the assessee. Likewise for the assessment year 1990-91 from the seized cash memo/bills, the total receipt comes to Rs. 1,29,436/- whereas in the income-tax return, the disclosed income is at Rs. 1,00,610/- and, therefore, the difference comes to Rs. 28,826/-. This amount is added to the income of the assessee, as the same is undisclosed income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition should be on the basis of the evidence on record and on the basis of the documents seized, but, in the facts of the present case, from the seized documents, these additions, which are made by Assessing Officer, have not been proved at all. The said additions have been made by presuming certain facts, for which there is no evidences on record at all. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the CIT(Appeals) and ITAT. It is further submitted that so far as addition of Rs. 56800/-for the assessment year 1989-90 is concerned, it has been rightly appreciated by the CIT(Appeals) and ITAT that the amount paid by the patients is inclusive of the payment made to others for medicines etc. Whatever is paid by the patients....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of patients also for two assessment years i.e. 1995-96 and 1996-97 as 1000. The Assessing Officer has also presumed the average rate of Rs. 2000/- per case, on the basis of cash memo seized for broken period running from 1st April, 1997 to 21st October, 1997. For this broken period the total receipt comes to Rs. 10,20,600/- and the total number of cases were 541 and, therefore, average comes to Rs. 2000/- per patient. Thus, the rate which was found out by the Assessing Officer in the year, 1997 has also been made applicable in the year 1988-89 and, that too, on the presumed number of patients. This is not permissible in the eyes of law. The total calculation of receipts of the respondent-assessee, which worked out at Rs. 11,48,600/- is abso....