Titled two appeals have been filed at the instance of the revenue calling in question the impugned order dated 269-2002 (Assessm ent Year-1999-2000) and order dated 4-82003 (Assessment year- 2000-01). For the assessm ent year 1999-2000 the revenue has objected to the acceptance of declared income from operations, reduction in income from private practice and miscellaneous expenses out of P&L account. For the assessment year 2000-01 the revenue has come up in appeal against the acceptance of declared version in respect of income from private practice income from operations and deletion of addition under section 12(18). Since for both the years the revenue has. Taken almost common grounds of appeal, the appeals are being decided through this consolidated order as under:
2. Briefly slated the facts of the case are the assessee is an individual deriving salary income as doctor and from private practice. Returns for the two years were filed declaring income of Rs.
1,47,688/- and Rs.1,61,000/- respectively. Returns were accompanied by salary statements and tax payment receipts. Statutory notices were issued for both the years and complied with. Since no patient register was produced for the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessing officer rejected the declared version and proceeded to estimate receipts from private practice at Rs, 1,80,000/- and income from operations at Rs. 2,50,000/-. After making add backs under the heads miscellaneous, petrol and miscellaneous repair, total income was assessed at Rs. 4,46,838/-. For the assessm ent year 2000-01 inspite of providing patient register income form private practice was adopted at Rs. 90,000/- on the plea that addresses of the patients were not provided. Income form operations was adopted at Rs. 2,50,000/- and after making some add backs under the heads miscellaneous and car petrol, net income was determined at Rs.3,24,844/-. Moreover, an addition under section 12(18) at Rs. 1,80,000/- was also made since the transaction made was not through crossed cheque.
3. In appeal the learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 1999-2000, the learned CIT(A) ordered for acceptance of declared version in respect of income from operations on the basis of certificate from the concerned hospital and for the reason that in the immediately proceeding year i.e. 1998- 99, the ITAT vide ITA No. 701/LB/2000, dated 28-10-2000 directed for acceptance of the declared version. Order for acceptance of the declared version on the same issue was also made for the assessm ent year 2000-01 on the same basis. On the issue of income from private practice the estimate was reduced form Rs. 1,80,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- against the declared figure of Rs. 35,000/- for the assessm ent year 1999-2000 on the basis of judgment reported as 2001 PCTLR 155. For the assessm ent year 2000-01 the learned CIT(A) also ordered for acceptance of declared income from private practice at Rs. 60,650/- against the estimated income of Rs. 90,000/- in view of certain reported and unreported judgments of the Tribunal mentioned in the body of impugned order.
However, a nominal relief was allowed in the P&L account for the assessment year 1999-2000 while add backs made for the assessm ent year 2000-01 were confirmed. In addition to this for the assessm ent year 2000-01 addition made under section 12(18) was also deleted. Hence the instant appeals by the revenue.
4. Both the parties have been heard and relevant orders perused. Bare scanning of the assessment orders for both the' years show that the assessing officer passed assessment orders in a summary manner and estimates of income from operations was made without any materials evidence.
Similar is the position with the estimations made in respect of income from private practice.
However, perusal of the impugned orders reveal that the learned CIT (A) allowed relief after detailed discussion and keeping in view material evidence such as certificate from the concerned hospital, history of the case i.e. ITAT's order for the immediately preceding year and on the basis of other parallel cases cited in the body of impugned orders. The revenue has failed to provide any material evidence in support of its contention Keeping all these facts in view the findings of the learned CIT(A) on the issues of "income from operations". "income from private practice" and treatment in respect of add backs in the P&L account is confirmed for both the years under appeal.
5. Regarding addition under section 12(18) for the as assessment year 2000-01, the facts are that the assessee in the reconciliation statement showed a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- as "Salami" received on the birth of his daughter. Since the amount was not received through crossed cheque, the assessing officer proceeded to make addition under section 12(18). On appeal the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition in view of findings of the Honourable Peshawar High Court reported as (2002)
85 Tax 354 wherein it has been held that any amount received through crossed cheques, cash or any other banking channels was not liable to tax under section 12(18). The learned CIT (A) also observed that as per tradition of our society "Salami' is being given on the occasions of births, marriages and other ceremonies. It was also observed by the learned CIT(A) that the assessing officer has failed to ascertain the true/genuine facts of the claim: The learned A.R. Of the assessee reiterated that the assessee has not received lump sum amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- but the same was received from his in laws, his near and dear ones in the shape of present of Rs. 500/- or Rs. 1000/-.
Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to observe that the learned CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition in view of judgment of Hon'ble Peshawar High Court. The order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue is also maintained.
6. As a result appeals of the revenue being devoid of any merit stand rejected.
Appeal rejected.