TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Medical Doctor specialist in Cardiology. The return of the Assessment Year 2006-07 was filed in Circle, Noida. 2. That, the Appellant has declared the income from pension, Profit and Gain from Business/Profession, Capital Gain and Income from Other Sources. 3. That, this return was picked up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under the provisions of Section 143(3) of Income -tax Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts raised to this appeal are that the Assessing Officer selected the case for scrutiny and completed the assessment u/s 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (for short the Act) on 21/11/2008 at total taxable income of Rs. 14,61,750/- as against the return income of Rs. 9,87,160/- by making certain disallow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Ld.CIT(A). 6. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, at the very outset we observe that neither the A.O nor the CIT (A) has controverted this fact that the husband of the assessee is a retired engineer who has full time to devote towards professional assistance for her wife in her professional career as a medical practitioner. The Ld. DR could not controvert this fact that the similar expenditure was allowed to the assessee for earlier and subsequent assessment year. 7. From the facts noted by the CIT(A) in Para 2 it is clear that the assessee enjoys income from pension and medical practice in the field of Cardiology and the assessee also refers patient to various hospitals and had disclosed professional fees of Rs. 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at new car of Rs. 8,625/- with facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer made disallowance by taking into consideration irrelevant and incorrect facts. Therefore, the disallowance made by the A.O and upheld by the CIT (A) may kindly be dismissed. 9. Replying to the above, the Ld. DR supported the action of the A.O and submitted that the A.O in para 4 has went into detail examination of the assessee and rightly held that the "Honda City Car" was purchased on 31/3/2006 and the utilization thereof for professional activities and for stand by parties does not exist. Therefore, he rightly made disallowance of Rs. 51, 492/-. The Ld. D.R also pointed out that the assessee placed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereas per list of dates and events the Honda City Car was purchased on 21/3/2006 as per submissions of the assessee. We are not inclined to accept contention of the A.O that the utilization of Honda City Car from professional activity and for stand by purpose does not exist. At the same time, we are not agreement with the explanation of the assessee submitted during the assessment proceedings that the job of the assessee who is a Cardiologist Medical Practitioner is of emergent in nature and some time if one car is showing some trouble so that the assessee has to keep a small car stand by to fulfill her responsibility of the professional work. Therefore, disallowance of deprecation made by the A.O and upheld by the CIT(A) on newly purchase ....