This is appeal by Revenue against order dt. 17th Feb., 2003 of CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi, relating to asst. yr. 1999-2000. assessee is private limited company. In order of assessment it is mentioned that assessee is engaged in business of running nursing home. In course of assessment proceedings assessee submitted that it does not maintain daily case register. AO has referred to fact that maintaining daily case register in Form 3C is statutory requirement under s. 44AA of Act, r/w r. 6F(3) of IT Rules. AO was of view that gross receipt of assessee cannot be verified in absence of daily case register in Form 3C. AO has made following observations in order of assessment: "I am, therefore, not satisfied with correctness and completeness of accounts of assessee. I, therefore, make addition of Rs. 13,30,000 being approximately five per cent of declared gross receipts of assessee, thereby estimating gross receipts at Rs. 2,79,34,223." Against aforesaid addition assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). principal argument of assessee before CIT(A) was that assessee being limited company cannot be said to be carrying on any profession, since for carrying out profession personal skill is required and company being artificial person cannot possess any personal skill. Reliance was placed on decision in case of Dy. CIT vs. Insight Diagnostics & Oncological Research Institute (P) Ltd. (2004) 88 TTJ (Pune) 580: (2002) 82 ITD 230 (Pune) wherein it was held that word business is of wide import and it refers to real, substantial and systematic or organized course of activity with set purpose. This definition would normally include profession. However, since legislature has defined words business and profession separately, word business would not include professional activity . word "profession" implies professed attainment of special knowledge as distinguished from mere skill. It involves labour, skill, education and special knowledge. Despite this distinction, if any, professional activity is carried on tinged with commercial character, then it may amount to business. following case laws were also relied upon for proposition that medical practitioners running nursing home would be case of professional man carrying on business activity. (a) Dr. P. Vadamalayan vs. CIT (1969) 74 ITR 94 (Mad); (b) CIT vs. Dr. V.K. Ramachandran (1981) 128 ITR 727 (Mad); (c) CIT vs. Upasana Hospital (1997) 139 CTR (Ker) 518: (1997) 225 ITR 845 (Ker). Reliance was placed on guidance note issued for tax audit under s. 44AB of Act by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India wherein they have classified nursing home as business activity and not as professional activity. Apart from above, assessee also challenged rejection of books of account by AO without pointing out any error, discrepancy or irregularities in books of account maintained by AO. It was also pointed out that details of names of patients, date of treatment, nature of professional services, fees received and date of receipt have been duly maintained by assessee and no fault whatsoever has been found regarding same. CIT(A) deleted addition made by AO for reasons given in para 1.5 of order which reads as follows: "I have carefully gone through facts of case. Daily case register in Form No. 3C as per r. 6F(3) is to be kept by person carrying on medical profession. Since assessee-company is not engaged in profession, to maintain daily case register by assessee-company as specified in r. 6F(3) is not applicable. AO has not pointed out any error, discrepancies in books of account, therefore, addition of Rs. 13,30,000 made to professional receipt by AO is not justified and without any basis, hence is deleted." Aggrieved by order of CIT(A), Revenue has preferred present appeal. grounds of appeal raised by Revenue read as follows: "(i) On facts and circumstances of case learned CIT(A) erred in allowing Rs. 13,30,300 added for professional receipts. Learned CIT(A) called for remand report. In remand report AO pointed out that assessee could not produce for verification daily case register in Form 3C, which is to be statutorily maintained as per provisions of s. 44AA of IT Act r/w r. 6F(3) of IT Rules. (ii) Secondly, assessee-company is engaged in profession of medicine because occupation carried on by it required intellectual skill, knowledge of medical science, application of mind, etc. Supreme Court has defined surgery as profession and same is also performed at premises of assessee. Moreover, assessee is not unqualified individual running nursing home rather it is company floated by qualified doctors for carrying on profession of medicine through assessee-company. It cannot be termed as assessee-company carrying on business rather it is very much engaged in profession of medicine." submission of learned Departmental Representative was that intention of legislature behind prescribing certain details to be maintained by persons practising medicine was that it will enable AO to ascertain gross receipts from profession. According to learned Departmental Representative intention of legislature is, therefore, to cover even private limited companies that are engaged in profession of medicine. According to him even private limited company can carry on medical profession. learned counsel for assessee drew our attention to various decisions relied upon before CIT(A) and submitted that company being artificial person cannot carry on profession as personal skill is required for carrying on profession. Company being artificial person cannot possess any personal skill. According to him even in case of individual who carries on profession of medicine and also carries out some incidental activity like providing x-rays etc. can be considered as carrying of business vis-a-vis activity of carrying out diagnosis through x-rays. He also pointed out that books of account of assessee were duly audited and auditors have given no adverse comments. He relied on decision of Hon ble Patna High Court in case of Mohd. Umer vs. CIT 1975 CTR (Pat) 13: (1975) 101 ITR 525 (Pat) for proposition that without pointing out specific defects and without expressing dissatisfaction about correctness and completeness of books of account, AO cannot reject books of account and resort to process of estimation of income. He also filed before us copies of earlier orders of assessment and orders of assessment for subsequent assessment years passed in case of assessee where AO had made no additions whatsoever to declared results. In reply learned Departmental Representative submitted that definition of person under s. 2(31) of Act also includes private limited company and, therefore, provisions of r. 6(F) would apply to case of assessee, which is private limited company. He also submitted that estimation of income is method of assessment accepted in tax laws and AO is best Judge in matter of estimation of income. We have considered rival submissions. Rule 6(F) r/w s. 44AA(1) of Act casts obligation on person carrying medical profession to keep and maintain such books of account and other documents which will enable AO t o compute his total income. Sub-s. (3) of s. 44AA empowers Board to prescribe list of documents to be maintained as per rules framed in this behalf. Rule 6F(3) mandates for maintenance of daily case register. assessee in present case is private limited company incorporated under Companies Act. Primary question that arises for our consideration is as to whether company could carry on profession. For person to be engaged in profession personal skill is necessary. company being artificial person cannot be said to possess any personal skills. company being artificial person does not have mind or body and, therefore, cannot be engaged in any profession. It can neither have intellectual skill or any manual skill. We are also of view that even taking broader and more comprehensive meaning of term profession one cannot extend same to case of incorporated company as being capable of carrying of profession. skill involved in carrying out professional activity is predominantly mental or intellectual rather than physical or manual. We are, therefore, of view that requirement of r. 6F(3) cannot apply to person which is incorporated company. Apart from above, we also find AO has not given any basis whatsoever for rejecting books of account of assessee. There is no specific finding or reasons for rejecting books of assessee. books of account of assessee are duly audited and it was incumbent on part of AO before rejecting books of account to point out specific defects therein. We are, therefore, of view that CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting this addition made by AO. We, therefore, confirm order of CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal by Revenue. In result appeal by Revenue is dismissed. *** Income-tax Officer v. Ashalok Nursing Home (P) Ltd