Judgment :- (Both the above ITAs are filed u/s.260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 28.5.2003 passed in ITA No.349/Bang/1998 & 421/Bang/1999 for the assessment year 1994-95 & 1995-96 respectively praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: allow the appeal and set-aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in ITA No.349/Bang/1998 & 421/Bang/1999 respectively dated 28.5.2003 confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and confirm the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner, of Income Tax (Investigation), Circle-2(2), Bangalore and etc.) Both the appeals are heard together since they involve similar questions of law and facts between the same parties. 2. The respondent/assessee is a Nursing Home with facility for inpatient treatment. The assessee has on its panel as many as 36 visiting doctors who were specialists in various fields of medicine. The intelligence wing conducted a raid. In the computer data, it is found that the Nursing Home bills had components. The one pertains to collection of nursing home charges for medical attention and inpatient stay. The 2nd component shows the fee collected by the visiting specialists. The assessee had not accounted the fee collected by the specialists in its accounts. The assessee to the show cause notice, explained that it is the practice of the Nursing Home that the visiting specialists collected their fee directly from the patients and it was not charged to the account of the Nursing Home any time. The assessee also filed a joint statement of 36 visiting specialists, wherein all the visiting specialists have stated that they were collecting the fee from the patients directly and it was not charged to the account of the assessee. 3. The assessee in the enquiry examined only some of the visiting specialists who are signatories to the joint statement. The said specialists have supported the version in the joint statement. The A.O. comes to the conclusion that all the visiting specialists are not examined, therefore, the amounts shown to have been collected to their account is disallowed for deduction and held to that extent as the income of the assessee. 4. The C.I.T. andthe Tribunal have concurrently held that the explanation offered by the assessee is sound and proper. Consequently, the order of the A.O. Stood set aside. The state is in appeal. 5. 4. The C.I.T. andthe Tribunal have concurrently held that the explanation offered by the assessee is sound and proper. Consequently, the order of the A.O. Stood set aside. The state is in appeal. 5. The following substantial questions of law is formulated for consideration: In ITA No. 435/2003 “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that it was the burden on the revenue to show that a sum of Rs. 11,47,580/- reflected in the accounts of the assessee belong to the assessee by ignoring the presumptive value contemplated under Sections 68 to 69B of the Act which shifted the burden on the assessee to demonstrate that this income did not belong to the assessee”. In ITA No. 436/2003: “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that it was the burden on the revenue to show that a sum of Rs.3,52,895/- reflected in the accounts of the assesssee belong to the assessee by ignoring the presumptive value contemplated under Sections 68 to 69B of the Act which shifted the burden on the assessee to demonstrate that this income did not belong to the assessee”. 6. Sri. M.V. Sheshachala, counsel for the revenue strenuously argued that when the assessee has filed the joint statement of visiting specialists to claim deduction, the burden is on the assessee to examine all the visiting specialists. When the assessee has examined some of the specialists, to that extent deductions is granted and in respect of visiting specialists who are not examined, the assessee is not entitled to any deduction and that the view taken by the tribunal is bad in law. 7. The enquiry under the Income Tax Act unlike before the Civil Court is not adversarial in nature. The assessing authority has power to adopt inquisitorial enquiry. When the assessee has given the joint statement of all the visiting specialists, wherein they categorically said that they have collected their fee directly from the patient and that the amount collected by them is not charged to the account of the assessee. The said statement gets prima facie credibility. Merely because the assessee has examined some of the specialists is not a ground to reject the statement of other specialists who are not examined. In the joint statement the names and addresses of the specialists is given in detail. The said statement gets prima facie credibility. Merely because the assessee has examined some of the specialists is not a ground to reject the statement of other specialists who are not examined. In the joint statement the names and addresses of the specialists is given in detail. The A.O. should have conducted sue motto enquiry of the specialists who are not examined before him to find out the truth of the joint statement. The technical insistence by the I.O. that the assessee should have examined all the specialists is an untenable view. In the absence of contra material, the A.O. cannot reject the genuineness and correctness of the statement. In that view of the matter, the question of law in both the appeals is answered in favour of the assessee. Both the appeals are dismissed.