Dr. Jagdish Dubal,, GANDHIDHAM v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 1003/RJT/2009 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 100324914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN EYEAR2006T
Bench Rajkot
Appeal Number ITA 1003/RJT/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Dr. Jagdish Dubal,, GANDHIDHAM
Respondent The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 06-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 06-07-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 30-09-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH RAJKOT. BEFORE SHRI A.L. GEHLOT (AM) AND SHRI N.R.S. GANESA N (JM) I.T.A. NO. 1003/RJT/2009. (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08.) DR. JAGDISH DUBAL VS. THE D Y.C.I.T. GANDHIDHAM. CENTRAL CIRCLER RAJKOT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.(SS)A. NOS. 71 TO 76/RJT/2009. (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2006-07) THE DY. C.I.T. VS. DR. JAGDISH DUBAL CENTRAL CIRCLER RAJKOT. GANDHIDHAM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KALPESH DOSHI C.A. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI J. M. SAHAY D.R. O R D E R PER AL GEHLOT AM: CROSS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08 AND OTHER APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE RAISED A COMMON GROU ND ON THE BASIS OF IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS. THESE APPEALS BELONG TO ONE ASSESSEE THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE COMMON GROUND RAISED IN CROSS APPEAL IS IN R ESPECT OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATION OF PR OFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE SEAR CH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 11-10-2006. THE ASSE SSEE IS A PRACTICING DOCTOR A PEDIATRICIAN. IT WAS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT ONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE WA S HIGHLY SUPPRESSING THE PROFESSIONAL FEE TO THE EXTENT OF M ORE THAN 50% EVERY DAY. THE A.O. WHILE POINTING OUT MODUS OPERA NDI STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE ISSUED FEE COLLECTION SLIP TO THE TRUS TED STAFF MEMBER WHO IN TURN COLLECTS THE FEE FROM THE RELATIVES OF THE PARTIES. THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ALLEGATION WAS FOUND CORRECT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SOME SLIPS A PPEARING AT PAGE- 169 TO 263 (TOTAL 95) OF A STATEMENT OF LOOSE PAPER S PREPARED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WERE FOUND RELATED TO DATED 09-10-20 08. THE PAGE NOS.125 TO 268 (TOTAL 38) OF THE STATEMENT ARE THE FEE RECEIPTS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR 09-10-2006. AS PER RE CEIPT BOOK THE RECEIPTS NO.3231 TO 3268 PERTAIN TO 09-10-2006 (IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WH ERE HE STATED DATE 09-10-2008 AND 10-10-2008). THE A.O. NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS ONLY FOR 38 PATIENTS AGGREGATING TO RS.7 930/- OUT OF TOTAL 95 OUTDOOR PATIENTS ATTENDE D ON 09-10-2006 WHEREAS ACTUAL FEES COLLECTION AS PER SLIP WAS RS.1 8 270/-. THUS SUPPRESSION OF FEE COLLECTION TO THE EXTENT OF 56% WAS CALCULATED. THE A.O. TABULATED THE DETAILS OF TOTAL SLIPS OF 95 PATIENTS AND RECEIPT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE NO.4 & 5. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID DETAILS THE A.O. FO UND THAT ALL THE FEES COLLECTION WAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T. OUT OF 95 PATIENTS OF 09-10-2006 IN THE FORENOON SESSION AND AFTERNOON ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 3 SESSION THE FEES RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF 38 PATIENT S ONLY WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY PREPARING THE FEE RECEIPTS FROM SR.NO.3231 TO 3268. THE A.O. NOTED THAT OUT O F THE TOTAL FEES RECEIPTS OF RS.18 270/- THE FEES OF RS.7 930/- WAS ACCOUNTED FOR AS RECEIPTS ISSUE FOUND ONLY FOR THIS AMOUNT ON 09-10- 2006. THE A.O. ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING HIM WHY THE FEE RECEIPTS SHOULD NOT BE ESTIMATED FOR THE WHOLE YEAR AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE S REPLY THE A.O. REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE GROUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT ACCOUNTED FOR COMPLETE FEES COLLECTION. THE SL IPS PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD FROM 2001-02 TO 2007-08 WERE DESTROYED A S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE FEE RECEIPTS WERE NOT ISSUED TO THE PATIENTS BUT THE SAME WERE P REPARED AT CONVENIENCE AND SELECTIVE BASIS ON THE SUBSEQUENT D AY. THEREFORE THE A.O. SATISFIED THAT THE CASE IS FIT FOR INVOKIN G PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REFLECT THE CORRECT AFFAIRS OF THE BUSINESS. AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE A.O. ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF INCOME RS.47 59 000/- OBSERVING AS U NDER :- 6.11 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE FEES COLLECTION I N RESPECT OF 09-10-2006 HAS BEEN SHOWN LESS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 7 930/- OUT OF RS.18 270/- (BEING THE ACTUAL OPD RECEIPT). THI S DOES NOT INCLUDE INDOOR PATIENT. FOR INDOOR PATIENTS SEPAR ATE RECEIPT BOOKS BEARING NO.201 ONWARD WAS IN USE DURING THE R ELEVANT PERIOD. THUS THE EVASION IS TO THE EXTENT OF 56% OUT OF OPD RECEIPTS IS PROVED. THE SAME STRATEGY RATHER HIGH ER THAN THIS 56% MUST HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE SO FAR AS INDOOR PATIENTS ARE CONCERNED. BUT FOR THE SAKE OF JUSTIC E THE RATIO OF 56% IS BEING ADOPTED FOR THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS (OTHER THAN SHIPPING AND ORTHOPEDIC FEE RE CEIPTS). ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 4 THE GROSS OPD FEE RECEIPT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS RS.37 39 320/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. F OLLOWING THE ABOVE RATIO THIS RECEIPT WORKS OUT TO 44% OF THE A CTUAL RECEIPT. I AM DETERMINING THE SUPPRESSION AT THE RATE OF 56% AND 63% AS COMPUTED AT PARA 6.6 TO GIVE BENEFIT TO THE ASSE SSEE. HENCE THE SAME HAS TO BE ENHANCED BY 56% TO ARRIVE AT THE ACTUAL GROSS FEE RECEIPTS. HOWEVER FOR THE SAKE O F JUSTICE AN ADDITION OF RS.47 59 000/- IS MADE TO THE TOTAL INC OME THUS TREATING THE SUPPRESSION TO THE EXTENT OF 56% (OF G ROSS RECEIPT AS PER SEIZED RECORD). THE SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN DULY SCRUTINIZED AND NOTHING INDICATING ANY UNEXPLA INED EXPENDITURE RELATING TO PROFESSION WAS FOUND. IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES THE PRIMA FACIE CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT ALL THE EXPENSES PERTAINING TO PROFESSION HAV E BEEN DULY DEBITED TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ONLY AND T HE MAIN MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SUPPRESSIO N OF FEE RECEIPTS. 6.12 THIS WORKING OF SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS FROM SEI ZED RECORDS FINDS SUPPORTS FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON. C.I.T. (A)-IV AHMEDABADS ORDER IN THE CASE OF D.R. KAMLESH P. DO MADIA OF RAJKOT ( FOR AY 2006-07 PASSED VIDE ORDER NO.CIT(A) - IV/47R/CC-2/07/08 DATED 5-3-2008) WHEREIN SIMILAR A DDITION WAS CONFIRMED. 4. THE C.I.T.(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ASSESSEES SUBMI SSION CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF REJEC TION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE INCOME ESTIMAT ED BY THE A.O. OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS O F LEARNED COUNSEL AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS . ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IT HAS BEEN NOTICED TH AT THE APPELLANT HAD ADMITTED THAT SOME IRREGULARITY VIZ. IN ISSUING THE RECEIPTS FOR 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 AND COMPLETION OF PATIENT REGISTER WAS FOUND PENDING FOR TWO DAYS AT THE TIME OF CONDU CT OF SEARCH. BUT PATIENTS SLIPS FOR TWO DAYS WERE FOUN D AT THE TIME ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 5 OF SEARCH. THIS INFORMATION WAS HAVING A DIRECT NEX US WITH THE PATIENTS EXAMINED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE HOSPITAL THEREFORE IN ORDER TO DRIVE AT THE CORRECT TAXABLE INCOME IN CAS E OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE OF WHICH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WE RE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.145 DUE TO T HE DEFECTS FOUND IN THEM. HENCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS RELIABLE SINCE THESE BOOKS WERE NOT MAINTAINED I N THE REGULAR COURSE OF THE BUSINESS/PROFESSION. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S.145 IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. FURTHER IT W AS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT ON 9.10.06 (MONDAY) WHEN HE R ETURNED TO THE CLINIC FROM FOREIGN VISIT NUMBERS OF PATIENTS EXAMINED BY HIM WERE 95 AND ON THE NEXT DAY I.E.10.10.06 IT W AS ONLY 38 PATIENTS. HENCE THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN GETTING PA TIENTS 38 TO 95 PER DAY IS PROVED BY THE SEIZED SLIPS BY THE DEP ARTMENT DURING SEARCH & SEIZER ACTION. THE FOREIGN VISIT I S ALSO EVIDENT BY THE PASSPORT. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT HIS ASSISTANT PEDIATRICIAN DR. MANISH P. CHUDASAMA WAS ATTENDING TO THE OUTDOOR AS WELL AS INDOOR PATIENTS. THIS FACTUM OF EMPLOYMENT OF DR. CHUDASAMA IS EVIDENT FROM THE PAGE NOS.2 & 3 OF THE ANNEXURE-A-5 SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPELL ANT. MOREOVER IN THIS CONNECTION THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO OBTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.20 IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ADIT(INV.) O N 11 TH OCTOBER 2006 THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED THAT HE H AD BEEN TO U.A.E. IN OCTOBER 2006 IN CONNECTION WITH BUSINESS WORK RELATING TO KALRAV EXIM. THE APPELLANT IS ADMITTE DLY MAINTAINING THE PATIENT REGISTER MAINTAINED IN FO RM 3C OF RULE 6F(3) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 R.W.S.44A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. AFTER MAKING THE ENTRIES IN THE PATIENT REGISTER THE TOTAL OF DAILY CONNECTION OF PROFESS IONAL RECEIPTS IS ENTERED IN THE CASH BOOK MAINTAINED IN COMPUTER. BUT THE ENTRY FOR TWO DAYS WAS NOT MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS. THE SLIPS OF 2 DAYS OF 9 TH AND 10 TH OCTOBER SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT SHOW THAT NUMBER OF PATIENTS EXAMINED BY HIM VARIES FROM DAY TO DAY. THE FLUCTUATION CAN BE TO THE EXTENT OF 21 6%. THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY HIM ALSO SHOW THIS FLUCTUATI ON. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TO ESTIMATE PROFESSIONAL RECE IPTS ON THE BASIS OF PATIENT SLIPS OF 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 AND 10 TH OCTOBER ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 6 2006 FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE HOSPI TAL PREMISES ON 11 TH OCTOBER 2006. THE WORK OF POSTING IN THE PATIENT REGISTER AND ISSUING OF THE RECEIPTS FOR 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 COULD NOT BE COMPLETED BECAUSE OF THE APPELLAN T WAS OUT OF GANDHIDHAM FOR A WEEK FROM 1 ST OCTOBER 2006 TO 7 TH OCTOBER 2006. THEREFORE WORK OF ISSUING THE RECEI PTS FOR 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 AND 10 TH OCTOBER 2006 AND CONSEQUENTIAL ENTRIES IN THE PATIENT REGISTER AND CASH BOOK REMAI NED TO BE COMPLETED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED FOR ESTIMATING THE PROFESSIONAL RECEI PTS FOR WHOLE YEAR AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF H.M. ESUFALI H.M. ABDUL ALI 90 ITR 271 (S.C.) WHICH WAS ALSO FOLLOWED BY THE UNDERSIGNED IN CASE OF DR. KAMLESH DOMADIA RAJKOT VIDE ORDER NO.CIT(A)-IV/47R/CC-2/07-08 DATED 5 TH MARCH 2008. THE CASES RELIED UPON BY LD. COUNSEL A RE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE SINCE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CA SES RELIED UPON BY LD. COUNSEL. THEREFORE THE CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED TO WHICH ARE HEREBY REJECTED. KE EPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPR ESSION OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS IS HEREBY CONFIRMED SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD ADMITTED THAT THERE WERE IRREGULARITIES NOTICED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH REFLECTING THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE N OT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF PROFESSION. HE NCE THE FIFTH SIXTH & SEVENTH GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMIS SED. 5. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAI NED HIS ACCOUNT ON ACTUAL RECEIPTS BASIS. THE LD. A.R. SUBM ITTED THAT A DETAILED DESCRIPTION REGARDING ACCOUNTING OF PROFES SIONAL RECEIPTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. AS WELL AS BEFORE TH E C.I.T.(A). THE SAID PROCEDURE POINTED OUT BY THE LD. A.R. FROM THE ORDER OF THE C.I.T.(A) IS REPRODUCED AS BELOW:- WHENEVER A PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF A PATIENT SEEKS A N APPOINTMENT EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH TELEPHONE BASIC ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 7 DETAILS VIZ. NAME AGE ADDRESS ETC. OF PATIENT ARE WRITTEN IN AN APPOINTMENT SHEET BY THE RECEPTIONIST. A COPY OF TH E APPOINTMENT SHEET IS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE DOCTOR. WHEN THE PATIENT TURNS UP IN THE HOSPITAL AT SCHEDULED TIME A SLIP CONTAINING THE BASIC DETAILS OF THE PATIENT IS HAND ED OVER BY THE RECEPTIONIST TO THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF THE PATIE NT TO BE CARRIED IN THE CONSULTING ROOM. AFTER THE EXAMINATI ON OF THE PATIENT THE DOCTOR USED TO GIVE INSTRUCTION ON TH E SLIP BROUGHT BY THE PATIENT REGARDING TREATMENT MEDICINES INV ESTIGATION IF ANY AND ALSO THE AMOUNT OF FEE TO BE CHARGED. AFTE R CONSULTATION THIS SLIP IS REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED AT THE COUNTER BY THE PATIENT SO THAT THE RECEPTIONIST WOULD READ THE INSTRUCTIONS AND ADVISE THE PATIENT ACCORDINGLY. T HE AMOUNT OF FEE NOTED IN THE SLIP IS ALSO COLLECTED AT THE COUN TER. IF A PARENT OR GUARDIAN ASKS FOR A RECEIPT THE RECEPTIONIST US ED TO PREPARE AND ISSUE NUMBERED RECEIPT TO SUCH PERSON IMMEDIATE LY. OTHERWISE THE RECEIPTS ARE PREPARED AS AND WHEN TH E RECEPTIONIST GETS FREE TIME AT THE END OF THE DAY. SIMULTANEOUSLY THE DATE RELATING TO PATIENTS ARE A LSO ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT COLUMNS OF PATIENT REGISTER MAINTAIN ED IN FORM 3C OF RULE 6F(3) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 R.W. S.44A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. AFTER MAKING THE ENTRIES IN THE PATIENT REGISTER THE TOTAL OF DAILY COLLECTION O F PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS IS ENTERED IN THE CASH BOOK MAINTAINED IN COMPUTER. THE ROUGH RECORDS SUCH AS APPOINTMENT SHEETS AND IN STRUCTION SLIPS ARE DESTROYED THEREAFTER. MOREOVER THE RECEI PTS ARE PRESERVED FOR FEW DAYS IN ANTICIPATION THAT A PATI ENT OR GUARDIAN OF A PATIENT MAY COME AND ASK FOR THE RECEIPT. UNCO LLECTED RECEIPTS ARE ALSO DESTROYED LATER ON AS DUPLICATE C OPIES OF THOSE RECEIPTS ARE PRESERVED PERMANENTLY FOR SUPPORTING. THE PRIMARY AND BASIC RECORD PRESCRIBED FOR A MEDICAL PRACTITIO NER IS PATIENT REGISTER AS PROVIDED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT AND RULES WAS DULY MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND THER EFORE THERE WAS NO NEED TO PRESERVE ROUGH PAPERS SUCH AS DAILY APPOINTMENT SHEETS AND PATIENT SLIPS. 6. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ABOVE PROCEDURE OF A CCOUNTING PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY ASSESS EE AT THE TIME OF ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 8 SEARCH ITSELF. CHIEF ACCOUNTANT SHRI G.M. CHANDASH EKHAR IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4)/131 ON 11-10-2006. TH E LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE THE ALLEGATION THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPRESSING THE FEES TO THE EXTENT OF MORE THAN 50% EVERY DAY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH STATEMENT OF SHRI G.M. CHANDRASHE KHAR ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON 11-10-20 06 BUT NOTHING COULD BE BROUGHT OUT IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLEGATION. NO OTHER STAFF MEMBERS WERE EXAMINED IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. ADMITTED TO MAKE OUT A CASE OF EXTRAPOLATI ON OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PATIENT SLIPS OF 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 AND 10 TH OCTOBER 2006 FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE HOSPITAL PREMISES ON 11 TH OCTOBER 2006. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE WORK OF POSTING IN THE PATIENT REGISTER AND ISSUING OF T HE RECEIPTS FOR 9 TH AND 10 TH OCTOBER 2006 COULD NOT BE COMPLETED BECAUSE THE N UMBER OF PATIENT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 WAS EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE I.E. 95 PATIENTS BECAUSE THE AS SESSEE WAS OUT OF GANDHIDHAM FOR A WEEK FROM 1 ST OCTOBER 2006 TO 7 TH OCTOBER 2006. ACCORDINGLY MOST OF THE PATIENTS TURNED UP ON MOND AY I.E. ON 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 AFTER ASCERTAINING FROM THE RECEPTION IST THE DETAILS OF RETURN OF ASSESSEE. THE WORK OF PREPARING OF FEES C OULD NOT BE COMPLETED BY THE RECEPTIONIST ON 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 ITSELF BECAUSE OF THE VOLUME OF THE WORK. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THA T ON 10 TH OCTOBER 2006 ONE OF THE PATIENT HAD INSISTED FOR RECEIPT I MMEDIATELY AND THEREFORE THE RECEPTIONIST HAD INADVERTENTLY ISSUE D THE RECEIPT IN CONTINUITY OF SAME RECEIPTS ALREADY ISSUED FOR 9 TH OCTOBER 2006. ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 9 BECAUSE OF THIS MISTAKE SHE COULD NOT COMPLETE THI S WORK ON 10 TH OCTOBER 2006. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CONNECTION AN AFFIDAVIT OF MISS NEELAM R. MULCHANDANI RECEPTIONI ST EXECUTED ON 07 TH MAY 2009 WAS SUBMITTED. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED T HAT THE A.O. WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PATIENT REGI STER FOR ONLY TWO DAYS WAS INCOMPLETE BECAUSE OF THE GOOD REASON AS S TATED ABOVE. THE A.O. SIMPLY JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A SSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE RECORDED 56% OF THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT EXCEPT THE PATIE NT SLIP NO OTHER INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION OF THE A.O. REGARD ING SUPPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE INCOME TAX RULES INCLUDING PRESCRIBED PATIENT REGIS TER. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THE PA TIENT REGISTER WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED UNDER THE PROVIS IONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND SAME WAS FOUND COMPLETED UP TO 8 TH OCTOBER 2006 AND THEREFORE NO PATIENT SLIPS FOR 8 TH OCTOBER 2006 AND EARLIER PERIOD WAS FOUND. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PATIENT SLIP S FOR 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 AND 10 TH OCTOBER 2006 WERE FOUND AS FOR THESE TWO DAYS THE PATIENT REGISTER COULD NOT BE COMPLETED. THEREFORE THESE SLIPS WERE PRESERVED IN ORDER TO ENTER THE SAME IN PATIENT REG ISTER. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE COLLECTION OF FEE FOR 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 WAS HIGHER AMOUNT BECAUSE OF THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF INDIA FOR ABOUT A WEEK AND HIS FIRST WORKING DAY AFTER HIS RE TURN TO INDIA WAS ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 10 09 TH OCTOBER 2006. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE OT HER REASON WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT PERIOD 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 AFTER IMMEDIATELY RAINY SEASON AND DUE TO CHANGE IN CLIMATE THE NUMBER OF PATIENT INCREASED DURING THE OCTOBER. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITT ED THAT THE ABOVE REASONS SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT ON THE NEXT DAY ON 10 TH OCTOBER 2006 THE PATIENT WAS ONLY 38. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITT ED THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE A.O. HAS TAKEN THE ADVANTA GE OF THE SITUATION AND ESTIMATED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FOR W HOLE YEAR AFTER ADOPTING THE RATIO OF 56 : 100. THE EXCEPTION HAS BEEN TRANSFORMED INTO RULE OF MAKING HIGH ESTIMATES BASED ON PRESUMP TIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ALONG WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH S ECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER TO SUPPRESS OR UNDERSTA TE THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AS COMPLETE DETAILS OF ALL PATIENTS WERE F OUND ENTERED IN THE PATIENT REGISTER TILL 8 TH OCTOBER 2006. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. DID NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN METH OD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THAT THE REASON FOR DES TROYING THE PATIENT SLIPS APART FROM THE OTHER EXPLANATION THE OTHER E XPLANATION WAS THAT SUCH SLIPS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND DURING THE COURSE OF AUDIT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED PATIENT REGISTER AND OTHER RECORDS AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT. THE A.O. DID NOT FIND ANY DIS CREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF INDOOR PATIENT RECE IPTS AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 6.11 IN HIS A SSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE PAPER SLIPS WE RE FOUND DURING ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 11 THE SEARCH AND IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT OUT OF 95 S LIPS RECEIPTS WERE ISSUED ONLY IN RESPECT OF 38 PATIENTS THE SEARCH O FFICER EXAMINED THE ASSESSEE AND HIS ACCOUNTANT WAS SUPPOSED TO PUT THI S DISCREPANCY TO THE ASSESSEE OR HIS ACCOUNTANT FOR EXPLANATION B Y WAY OF A SPECIFIC QUESTION WHILE RECORDING THEIR STATEMENT U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT. IT IS A FACT THAT NO QUERY WAS RAISED EITHER DURING THE SEA RCH OR EVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CALLING UPON THE ASSESS EE TO EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE FEE RECEIPTS COUL D NOT BE ISSUED. THE AFFIDAVIT OF MISS NEELAM R. MULCHANDANI WAS FIL ED BEFORE THE C.I.T.(A) AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITT ED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 . THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS SUFFICIENT PRO OF REGARDING SUPPRESSION OF THE RECEIPTS THEN THE CONCERNED OFFI CERS TO HAVE EXAMINED THE STAFF MEMBERS ON THIS ASPECT DURING TH E SEARCH BUT NOTHING WAS DONE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE LD. A.R. SUB MITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO SUCH DOUBT OR ALLEGATION W AS RAISED BY THE SEARCH PARTY BUT SUBSEQUENTLY THE A.O. DOUBTED ABO UT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FEES SHOWN IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT NORMALLY ON AN AVERAGE A C HILD SPECIALIST WOULD EXAMINE EIGHT PATIENTS IN ONE HOUR. SO FOR EXAMINING 95 PATIENTS ON 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 THE DOCTOR AND HIS STAFF MEMBERS WOU LD HAVE WORKED FORE MORE THAN 12 HOURS ON THAT DAY. T HEREFORE IT WAS QUITE NATURAL THAT SOME OFFICE WORK FOR 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 REMAINED INCOMPLETE AT THE END OF THAT DAY DUE TO HEAVY WORK PRESSURE ON PARTICULAR DATE. THE LD. A.R. ALSO POINTED OUT THA T THE SUPPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. PRIMA F ACIE IS EXCESSIVE ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 12 AND UNREASONABLE BECAUSE A SPECIALIST CANNOT WORK B EYOND A LIMITED PERIOD. AS PER THE ESTIMATION OF THE A.O. THE ASS ESSEE-DOCTOR HAS TO WORK ABOUT 18-20 HOURS A DAY ON REGULAR BASIS WHIC H IS HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISI ONS ON WHICH THE A.O. RELIED UPON ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS PE R THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE C.I.T.(A). THE C.I.T.(A) REL IED UPON IN THE CASE OF H.M. ESUFALI H.M. ABDUL ALI 90 ITR 271 (SC). TH E LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMIT TED THE FACT OF CONCEALMENT OF TURNOVER AND THEREFORE THE SUPREME COURT HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER MAY BE ESTI MATED. BUT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS THERE. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AFTER THOROUGH SEARCHES OF BUSINESS PREMISES AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES NOTHING INCRIMIN ATING INDICATING SUPPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS ARE FOUND BY T HE DEPARTMENT EXCEPT MERE IRREGULARITY IN RESPECT OF INCOMPLETE P ATIENT REGISTER FOR TWO DAYS WHICH IS NOT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF H.M. ESUFALI H.M. ABDUL ALI 90 ITR 271 (SUPRA). THE LD. A.R. RE FERRING PAGE-78 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL AMOU NT OF FEES RS.31 866/- ON 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 WAS FOR IN CASH BOOK. THE RELEVANT COPY OF THE CASH BOOK HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE-63 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS ALSO SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT WHEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH EST IMATION CANNOT BE MADE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THE LD. A.R. R ELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (1) AMBICA FOOD INDUSTRIES 110 TTJ 680 (HYD.) (2) CHETANDAS LACHMAN DAS 36 SOT 417 (DEL.) ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 13 (3) D.C.I.T. VS. ROYAL MARWAR TOBACCO PROD UCT(P) LTD. 120 TTJ (AHD.) 387 (4) EVERGREEN BAR AND RESTAURANT VS. ACIT 6DTR (MUM.)(TRIB.)56 AND (5) D.R. R.M.L. MEHROTRA VS. A.C.I.T. 64 TT J(ALL) 259. 7. THE LD. A.R. WHILE CONCLUDING HIS ARGUMENT SUBMI TTED THAT THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. FOR OTH ER YEARS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE C.I.T.(A). HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF C.I.T.(A) FOR OTHER YEARS. 8. THE RELEVANT FINDING POINTED BY THE LD. A.R. FRO M A.Y. 2001-02 ARE AS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 4.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS . ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IT HAS BEEN NOTICED TH AT THE ADDITION OF RS.11 41 131/- WAS MADE ON THE BASES OF THE SLIPS FOUND FOR ONLY 2 DAYS IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2006 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SUPPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT AS SESSMENT YEAR. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY THING ON RECORDS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT MAINTAINING PAT IENT REGISTER AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INC OME TAX ACT 1961 READ WITH INCOME TAX RULES 1962. THEREFORE THE APPOINTMENT SLIPS AND LOOSE SHEETS WERE NOT REQUIRE D TO BE PRESERVED. ALSO THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR MAKING ADDITION OF RS.11 41 131/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AFTER REJECTIN G BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS ON THE BASIS OF REASONING GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.YR.2007-08. FURTHER ON THE BASIS OF SOME IRREGULARITY IN THE FORM OF INCOMPLETE RECORDS FOR ONLY TWO DAYS IN THE YEAR 2006 THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ESTIMATED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION PARTICUL ARLY WHEN NO ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 14 DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ACCOUNTS FOR THI S YEAR. IT WAS HELD BY JURISDICTIONAL AND BINDING HONBLE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN CASE OF D.C.I.T. V/S. ROYAL MARW AR TOBACCO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (2008) 16 DTR (AHD) (TRIB ) 129 THAT NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL INDICATING ANY SUPPRESSED S ALES IN A.YRS.2000-01 TO 2003-04 HAVING BEEN FOUND DURING S EARCH AND NO DEFECT IN THE BOOKS HAVING ALSO BEEN FOUND. A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL SEIZED RELA TING TO A.YR.2004-05 INDICATING SUPPRESSED SALES IN ASSUMI NG SUPPRESSED SALES FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ESTI MATING THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY AND MAKING ADDITIONS. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMIL AR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF D.C.I.T. V/S. ROYAL MARWAR TOBACCO P RODUCTS(P) LTD. (2008) 16DTR (AHD) (TRIB) 129 SINCE IN THE PRE SENT CASE IRREGULARITY IN THE FORM OF PATIENTS SLIPS FOR TWO DAYS WAS FOUND DURING OCTOBER 2006 WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007-08 CANNOT BE MADE BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE PRO FESSIONAL RECEIPTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S.15 3A AS WAS ALSO HELD IN CASE (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY LD. COUNSE L. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS RESPECTFULLY RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE A HMEDABAD ITAT THE ADDITION MADE IS HEREBY DELETED. HENCE THE FIFTH SIXTH & SEVENTH GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 9. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT T HE C.I.T.(A) IN A.Y. 2007-08 HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AN D FOUND THAT THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE INCOME FOR ALL THE Y EARS. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PATIENT SLIPS WERE FOUND ONLY FO R SOME DAYS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SUCH SLIPS WERE NOT AVAILA BLE FOR OTHER PERIOD BEFORE THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT THESE SLI PS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT WHEN SUCH P RIMARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN DESTROYED THE A.O. IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 15 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E PARTIES RECORD PERUSED AND GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS CITED . THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF REJECTION OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS. A SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 11-10- 2006. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INCOMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS F OUND FOR 9 TH & 10 TH OCTOBER 2006. CASH OF RS.3 50 000/- WAS ALSO FOUN D WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT FOR TWO DAYS 9 TH & 10 TH OCTOBER 2006 WAS NOT FOUND ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ISSUED PROFESS IONAL RECEIPTS FOR THESE TWO DAYS 9 TH & 10 TH OCTOBER 2006. THESE ARE THE SUCH FACTS BASIS ON WHICH IT CAN BE HELD THAT THE A.O. HAS RIG HTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SAME IS CONFIRMED BY THE C.I.T .(A). THUS ON THIS ISSUE THE ORDER OF C.I.T.(A) IS CONFIRMED. 11. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE WE FIND TH AT THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE BASIS OF FEES CALCULATION FOR TWO DAYS AND ON A LLEGATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FEES RECEIPTS TO THE EXTENT O F MORE THAN 50% EVERYDAY HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED. THE A.O. HEAVILY REL IED UPON ON A PRESUMPTIONS THAT PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS NO.3231 TO 3268 AMOUNTING TO RS.7 930/- FOR 38 PATIENTS ONLY WERE ISSUED ON 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 AS AGAINST COLLECTION FROM 95 PATIENTS TOTAL FEES OF R S.18 270/-. SINCE THE RECEIPT NO.3269 IS DATE 10 TH OCTOBER 2006 (THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AS HE HAS STATED AS 10 TH OCTOBER 2008) THE PRESUMPTION OF THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DISCLOSE THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FOR BALANCE AMOUNT. THE A.O. APPLIED A ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 16 MATHEMATICAL FORMULA THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL PROFESSI ONAL FEES OF RS.18 270/- THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED PROFESSIONAL R ECEIPTS ONLY FOR RS.7 930/- WHICH IS GOING TO ACCOUNT FOR BOOKS OF A CCOUNT THUS THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED MODUS OPERANDI FOR SUPPRESSING THE RECEIPTS FOR RS.10 340/- OUT OF RS.18 270/- THE CALCULATION OF W HICH IN PERCENTAGE COMES TO 56%. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY APPLIED THIS FO RMULA FOR ALL THE YEARS COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH AND ESTIMATED SUPPRE SSION FEES. THE A.O. WHILE APPLYING THE FORMULA FOR ALL THE YEA RS HEAVILY RELIED UPON A JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF H.M . ESUFALI H.M. ABDUL ALI 90 ITR 271 (SC). THAT WAS A THAT CASE IN WHICH UNREPORTED SALES WERE DETECTED FOR A PERIOD OF 19 DAYS IN A YE AR. THE A.O. ESTIMATED THE TURNOVER FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR ON THE BASIS OF THE UNREPORTED SALES FOR THE PERIOD OF 19 DAYS. THE QUESTION THAT AROSE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IS AS TO WHETHER THE A.O. WAS RIGHT IN DOING SO. IT WAS HELD BY THE APEX COURT THAT IN A MATTER INVOLVED IN UNREPORTED SALES THE A.O. HAS TO PROCEED ON THE BA SIS OF ESTIMATION WHICH INVOLVES SOME AMOUNT ON GUESS WORK. THE APEX COURT ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN ESTIMATING THE TURNOVER ON THE BASIS OF UNREPORTED SALES FOR A SHORTER PERIOD. HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION W E ARE CONCERNED WITH A SEARCH MATTER CARRIED OUT U/S.132 FOR SIX YE ARS. ULTIMATELY THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT MUST BE SEEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATIO N THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ISSUING RECEIPT NO. 3269 DATED 10 TH OCTOBER 2006 THAT SOME OF THE RECEIPTS WERE ISSUING AT THE INSTANCE REQUEST OF THE PATIENT/HIS RELATIVES AND OTHERS FEE S RECEIPTS WERE ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 17 ISSUED AT THE END OF THE DAY. THIS WAS PREVAILING ACCOUNTING PRACTICE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPA RTMENT IN THE PAST YEARS. THOUGH AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INCOMPLETE BUT LATER ON SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS RS.31 866/- IN THE CASH BOOK WHICH INCLUDES INDOOR PATIENT RS.7 490/- AND OUTDOOR PATIENT RS.24 376/- A COPY OF CASH BOO K DATED 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 78. THE A SSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED INDIVIDUAL PATIENTWISE RECEIPTS ON 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 OF WHICH DETAILED FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 71 TO 74 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE OPD RECEIPT HAS BEEN SHOWN RS.24 620/- WHEREAS THE A.O. HAS CALCULATED THESE RECEIPTS FOR RS.18 270/-. IT HAS BEEN ALSO EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT WHY THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT WAS NOT COMPLETE ON 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF STATION FROM 1 ST OCTOBER 2006 TO 6 TH OCTOBER 2006. THE 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 WAS THE FIRST WORKING DAY AFTER HIS RETURN TO INDIA. T HE ASSESSEE AT THE BEGINNING STAGE EXPLAINED THE ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE THE RELEVANT PORTION HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN PARA-5 OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS HELD BY THE C.I.T.(A) HIMSELF IN A.Y. 2001-02 AND SUBSEQUENT YE ARS THAT THE A.O. DID NOT BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING PATIENT REGISTER AS PRESCRIBED UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 READ WITH INCOME TAX RULES 19 62. ONE OF THE ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 18 ALLEGATIONS OF THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT P RESERVE THE SLIPS ISSUED TO THE PATIENT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE PATIENT SLIPS ARE JUST APPROVAL MEMO IN CASE OF TRADING AND OTHER BUSINESSMEN AND NOT NECESSARY OF THE APPROVAL MEMO DERIVED INTO INCOME OR PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS WHATEVER FINALLY P ROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS ACCRUED AND RECEIVED THE ASSESSEE ISSUED PROFESSIO NAL RECEIPTS AND SAME HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS FACT SUPPORTED BY THE MATERIAL AND DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF WE SEE THIS APPROVAL MEMO LIKE PATIENT SLIPS WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF SHOWN CERTAIN PATIENT SLIPS AGAINST WHICH N O FEES RECEIPTS E.G. ON 9 TH OCTOBER 2006 SUCH SLIP NOS.176 192 210 AND OTHE RS. SIMILARLY IN EARLIER PERIOD SUCH SLIPS WERE NOTICE D FOR 7 TH OCTOBER & 6 TH OCTOBER 2006 THOUGH THE NAME OF THE PATIENT IS THE RE IN THE PATIENT REGISTER. BUT SINCE THE FEES WERE NOT RECEIVED THE REFORE IN AMOUNT COLUMN THOSE ARE SHOWN AS NIL. THE A.O. DID NOT D ENY THIS PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS TRUE THAT ONLY THE INCOME WHICH IS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IS SUBJECT TO TAX AND NO SU CH ARTIFICIAL OR HYPOTHETICAL OR ARBITRARY INCOME IS SUBJECT TO TAX. WE FIND THAT THE SOLE BASIS OF MATHEMATICAL ESTIMATION OF INCOME BY THE A.O. IS BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE ISSUED PROF ESSIONAL RECEIPT NO.3269 ON 10 TH OCTOBER 2006 AND RECEIPTS NO.3231 TO 3268 WERE FOUND ISSUED ON 9 TH OCTOBER 2006. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GOING TO ACCOUNT FOR THE REMAINING PROFESSIONAL REC EIPTS WHEREAS THE FACT IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR AL L THE RECEIPTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THOUGH AFTER THE SEARCH IS OVER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS ON THE BASI S OF THE MATERIALS ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 19 AND DOCUMENTS WHICH HE WAS ADOPTING FOR ACCOUNTING HIS PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AS PER THE PAST PRACTICE. IT IS ACCEPTABLE VIEW THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THE A.O . FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THAT ACCOUNTING OF THE INCOME. THE A.O. CANNOT MAKE FURTHER ARBITRARY ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ISSUE RECEIPT PROPERLY FOR FEW DAYS 9 TH OCTOBER TO 11 TH OCTOBER 2006 AS THE RELEVANT RECEIPT BOOKS ETC. WERE SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 12. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS BY APPLYING A M ATHEMATICAL FORMULA WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE PROCEDURE OF ACCOU NTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY SINGLE INSTANCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED ANY PROFESSIONAL R ECEIPTS. WHATEVER THE A.O. POINTED OUT ARE SOME IRREGULARITI ES IN ACCOUNTS. THE C.I.T.(A) HIMSELF HAS APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HE DELETED THE ADDITION FOR SUBSEQUENT YEAR 2001-02 TO 2007-08. THE C.I.T.(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IN A.Y.20 07-08 HEAVILY RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF H.M. ESUFALI H.M. ABDUL ALI 90 ITR 271 (SC) WHICH IS DIS TINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOV E DISCUSSION WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.47 59 000/- MADE BY TH E A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY C.I.T.(A) APPLYING MATHEMATICAL FORMUL A IS NOT WARRANTED. THEREFORE THE SAME IS DELETED. ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 20 13. ONE MORE GROUND RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.70 680/- ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES. ON VERIFICATION OF SAID MATERIAL THE A.O. NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.36 550/- AND 13 950/ WHI CH WAS NOT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY SOME BILLS ISSUED BY M/S. AIR WINGS HOLIDAYS FOR RS.20 180/- WAS FOUND NOT RE CORDED. THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES A ND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF HIS FATHER. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS .70 680/- WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE C.I.T.(A). 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E PARTIES RECORD PERUSED. WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SOME MATERIAL WHICH WAS TREATED AS PAGE NO.120 TO 121 AN D 179 TO 180 PERTAINING TO THIS EXPENDITURE WAS FOUND. THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO FURNISH SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE C.I.T.(A). IN SUSTAI NING THE SAID ADDITION THE ORDER OF THE C.I.T.(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS CONFIRM ED. 15. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR OTHER YEARS. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 . 16. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS A PPEAL IS PERTAINING TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1 77 835/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF BUNGALOW. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A .O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.5 50 000/- TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 21 BUNGALOW. THE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEBITED I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SMT. VARSHA J. DUBAL. THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASE IN JOINT NAME. THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROPERTY APPEARI NG IN BALANCE SHEETS OF JOINT HOLDERS WORK OUT TO RS.11 00 000/-. ON VERIFICATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE DOCUMEN T PRICE OF BUNGALOW AS PER PAGE 1 TO 11 OF ANNEXURE AS WAS RS. 11 11 111/-. THUS THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED LESS BY RS.11 111/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOTICED SOME OF THE EXP ENSES ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUTY RS.1 22 300/- REGISTRATION F EES RS.16 845/- AND ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY RS.38 690/- WHICH WAS ALS O NOT FOUND ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE TOTAL A MOUNT INCLUDING DIFFERENCE OF RS.11 111/- COMES TO RS.1 88 946/-. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION NOTICED THAT THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER AND ADDITION OF RS.19 16 714/- WAS MADE BUT SAME WAS DELETED AND TH E DELETION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT. HOWEVER THE A.O. MADE ADDI TION OF RS.1 88 946/-. SIMILARLY IN A.Y.2002-03 THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.21 810/- IN RESPECT OF STAMP DUTY IN A.Y. 2005- 06 SUCH ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS RS.6 645/- AND IN A.Y.2006-07 RS.21 810/-. THE C.I.T.(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION ON THE GROUND T HAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AN OFFICER IN FOOD CORPORATION OF INDI A AND AFTER RETIREMENT HE HAS INVESTED HIS SAVING IN AGRICULTUR AL LAND ADMEASURING ABOUT 20 ACRES AND DERIVING AGRICULTURA L INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ABOUT RS.70 000/- TO RS.80 000/- PER YEAR . THE C.I.T.(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EX PENDITURE WAS INCURRED OUT OF THE SAID INCOME. HOWEVER THE ADDI TION TO THE EXTENT ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 22 OF RS.11 111/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE C.I.T.(A) AS FACT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE COST OF THE BUNGA LOW LESS BY RS.11 111/-. THEREFORE WE ALSO CONFIRM THE ADDITI ON TO THE EXTENT OF RS.11 111/- AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF C.I.T.(A) IN D EDUCTING THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.1 77 835/-. T HE C.I.T.(A) HAS ALSO DELETED ADDITION OF OTHER YEARS ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT SUCH EXPENSES WERE OUT OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL AND OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF HIS FATHER. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E PARTIES RECORD PERUSED. WE FIND THAT IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT S NO SUCH ADDITIONS WERE MADE. HOWEVER SOME PAPERS RELATED T O THIS ADDITION WERE FOUND BUT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED OUT OF THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL AND AG RICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER. THE C.I.T.(A) AFTER CONSI DERING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION FOUND THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ASSESSEES FATHER AND WITHDRAWAL OF ASSESSEE AND AS SESSEES WIFE WERE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THESE EXPENSES. CONTRARY TO THAT FACT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORDS. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE C.I.T.(A) IN DELETING SUCH ADDITIO N. THE ORDER OF THE C.I.T.(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS CONFIRMED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 18. ONE MORE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS AP PEAL IN A.Y. 2004-05 IS IN RESPECT OF DELETING OF ADDITION OF RS .16 21 645/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT. ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 23 19. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH SOME LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODU CED BY THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE-2 AND 3. ON THE BASIS OF NOTING OF THOSE LOOSE PAPERS THE A.O. LINKED THE NOTING WITH THE P LOT PURCHASING IN THE JOINT NAMES OF ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. THE NOTI NG ON THE LOOSE PAPER HAS BEEN CONVERTED IN THE AMOUNT BY THE A.O. AND ADDITION OF RS.16 21 655/- WAS MADE. THE C.I.T.(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION OBSERVING THAT IT CANNOT BE SO READILY INFERRED UN LESS SUCH INFERENCE CAN BE POSITIVELY MADE AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF TH E LOOSE PAPERS. FIGURES THEREIN COULD NOT BE LIGHTLY INFERRED TO RE PRESENT UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT/INCOME UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING MORE T O IT. THE C.I.T.(A) RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT THIRD MEMBER BOMBAY BENCH IN THE CASE OF S.P. GOYAL V/S. DY.CIT 269 ITR 59 (AT). THE C.I.T.(A) HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE SIMILAR VIEW W AS TAKEN BY A THIRD MEMBER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF BAB ROS MACHINERY MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD. V/S. DY. C.I.T. 2 69 ITR 36 (AT). THE C.I.T.(A) HAS ALSO RELIED UPON ONE MORE DECISIO N OF ITAT BOMBAY BENCH IN THE CASE OF EMBEE CLEARING & SHIPPI NG SERVICES (PVT) LTD. V/S. A.C.I.T. 12 SOT 227 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT A.O. HAD NOT LINKED THE CONTENTS OF SEIZED PAPER WITH ACTUAL EXPENDITURE OF RENOVATION CARRIED OUT AT OFFICE PREMISES. THEREFO RE THE SAID ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME WAS DELETED. THE C.I .T.(A) NOTED THAT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE A.O. DID NOT M AKE ANY FURTHER INQUIRY IN RESPECT OF THE NOTING OF LOOSE PAPERS. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NEMICHAND JAIN WAS RECORDED. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISC HARGED HIS ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 24 ONUS BY WAY INFORMING THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO W HOM THESE LOOSE PAPERS BELONG. BUT THE A.O. DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTHE R INQUIRY. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE C.I.T.(A) THAT A.O. SHOULD HAVE MADE INQUIRY FROM THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO SUBSTAN TIATE THE ENTRIES MAD IN THE LOOSE PAPERS BUT NO SUCH INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS THE C.I.T.(A) HELD THAT THE ADD ITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE CONSIDERATION HAD ACTUAL PASSED FROM THE PURCHASER TO SELLER OF THE PROPERTY. 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E PARTIES RECORD PERUSED. WE FIND THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS WERE IN THE HAND WRITTEN OF SHRI NEMICHAND JAIN WHO HAD BROKERED THE DEAL RELATING TO PURCHASE OF PLOT NO.123. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO NO TICE OF THE A.O. THAT ADIT (INVESTIGATION) HAD RECORDED THE STATEMEN T OF SHRI NEMICHAND JAIN IN THIS CONNECTION WITH THESE PAPERS . HOWEVER THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENT WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE AS SESSEE. THE A.O. ALSO DID NOT MAKE ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STAT EMENT OF SHRI NEMICHAND JAIN. IT WAS ALSO SUBMISSION OF THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE C.I.T.(A) THAT EVEN ON THE BASIS OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CANNOT EXCEED TO RS.4 48 950/- ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER BECAUSE THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES HAD DETERMINED THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND ACCORDINGLY CH ARGED THE ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY OF RS.6 395/-. THE ASSESSEE I N SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS WERE NOTHING BUT S OME ROUGH JOTTING AND TO SUPPORT THEIR CONTENTION A COMPARABLE CHART OF CASES OF TRANSFER OF LAND IN THE SAME LOCALITY BETWEEN DECEM BER 2003 AND ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 25 MAY 2004 WAS FILED BEFORE THE A.O. BASIS ON WHICH I T WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY ACCOUNTED THE PURCH ASING COST OF THE PLOT. THE LOOSE PAPER ITSELF DOES NOT SHOW THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY EXTRA AMOUNT. WE FIND THAT THE C.I.T.(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FACTS AND FINDINGS OF THE A.O. RELYING UPON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE ITAT FOUND THAT MERELY ON THE BAS IS OF ROUGH JOTTING OR ANYTHING ON PAPER ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE UNLES S IT IS CO-RELATED WITH THE FACTS THAT THE SAME INCOME WAS INVESTMENT HAS BEEN BORNE. THE C.I.T.(A) HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES CO NTENTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPERTY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT WAS THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THAT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPARABLE CASES AND VALUATION STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE C.I.T.(A). T HE REVENUE FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL TO THE FINDINGS OF THE C.I.T.(A). IN THE LIGHT OF FACT WE ARE NOT DISTURBING THE FINDIN GS OF THE C.I.T.(A) . THE ORDER OF C.I.T.(A) ON THE ISSUE IS CONFIRMED. 21. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AND APPEALS BY REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29-07-2011. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) ( A. L. GEHLOT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. RAJKOT DT : 29-07-2011. ITA.1 003 & 71 TO 76-2009. A.YS.2001- 02 TO 2007-08. 26 NVA/- COPY TO: 1. DR. JAGDISH DUBAL GANDHIDHAM. 2. THE DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 RAJKOT. 3. THE CIT(A)- RAJKOT. 4. THE C.I.T. 5. THE D.R. I.T.A.T. RAJKOT. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT RAJKOT.