COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. K. KUNHMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE connected income -tax appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other filed by the Revenue, arise from the orders of the Tribunal disposing of appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue against the block assessment

(2.) WE have heard advocate Sri. T.N. Seetharaman appearing along with advocate Sri. S. Arun Raj for the assessee and the standing counsel appearing for the Department.

(3.) ASSESSEE is a reputed gynaecologist working in a hospital owned by his wife and managed by his wife's father. During professional charges paid to the assessee for services rendered to in -patients. Along with recovery of accounts from the hospital, the Department also recorded statement from the assessee under s. 132(4) of the IT Act. Besides the amount paid from the hospital towards professional charges recovered from in -patients the assessee was also allowed to collect consultation fee directly from the out -patients. One of the disputes is on the income of Rs. 15,84,814, assessed for the asst. yr. 2003 -04 forming part of block period. This is the amount shown in the computer accounts seized from the estimated Rs. 1,95,937 towards undisclosed income collected by the assessee during this period for out -patient consultation. Assessee does not deny the receipt of this income. However, the assessee contended that time for filing return for the asst. yr. 2003 -04 was not over as on date of search and assessee had in fact later paid advance tax including this amount also as income for the asst. yr. 2003 -04. Therefore, this income should not be treated as undisclosed income for the block period in terms of s. 158BB(1)(d) of the Act was the case of the assessee. The AO rejected the contention and assessed the income as part of undisclosed income for the block period. In the first appeal the addition was confirmed and on second appeal the Tribunal also confirmed it against which the assessee has filed this appeal.