D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. Dr. Suresh Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.44/2012CIT, Udaipur Vs. Dr. Suresn Sharma Date of Judgment 14[th] January, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant. ---- BY THE COURT:(PER HON'BLE BHANSALI),J. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 ['the Act'] has been filed by the Revenue seeking toquestion the order dated 09.12.2011 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ['the Tribunal'] inITA No.652/JODH/08 and C.O.No.28/JODH/2009 for theassessment year 2003-2004, whereby, the Tribunal has affirmedthe order dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals), Udaipur ['the CIT(A)'] partly allowing theappeal preferred by the assessee and deleting the additions ofRs.2,04,301/- on account of unexplained purchase of medicine,Rs.6,63,250/- on account of fees and Rs.59,85,443/- asunaccounted expenditure as made by the Assessing Officer ['the AO'] in the assessment order dated 31.12.2007. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant andhaving perused the material placed on record, we are clearly ofthe view that the present appeal essentially raises issues relatingto appreciation of evidence resulting in finding on facts; and nosubstantial question of law is involved. The facts of the case may be noted thus: The assesseeruns a nursing home and also owns a marble cutting plant. Theassessee filed his original return of income for the assessmentyear 2003-2004 on 06.05.2004 declaring total income ofRs.62,350/-. The assessment was completed under Section143(3) of the Act. It appears that thereafter, a survey underSection 133A of the Act was undertaken at the businesspremises of the assessee and on the basis of material foundduring the course of survey, a notice under Section 148 of theAct was issued relating to assessment years 2002-2003 and2003-2004 and assessments were completed under Section 143(3)/148 of the Act. The AO, inter alia, made the additions, threeof which were deleted by the CIT(A) as noticed hereinbefore.The appeals arising out of assessment years 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 filed by revenue were decided by the Tribunal by acommon order. For the assessment year 2003-2004 the Tribunal hasobserved as under:- “The department has taken the following grounds in the appeal:- (i)Deleting the addition of Rs.204310 made bythe Assessing Officer on account of unaccountedpurchase of medicine. (ii)Deleting the addition of Rs.663250 made bythe AO on account of fees. (iii)Deleting the addition of Rs.5985443 madeby the AO on account of unexplained factory andhospital expenditure. All the three issues above are exactly the same asthe three issues dealt by us in appeal no.659/Jodh/08 forA.Y. 2002-03. The assessing officer has given the similarfinding for making the additions and CIT(A) has given thesimilar findings for deleting the additions in this year also.Both the ld. DR and ld. AR agreed that facts of the case aresimilar to assessment year 2002-03 and therefore,following the order passed above in appeal no.659/Jodh/08,we dismiss all the three grounds of appeal of thedepartment.” This Court while considering the appeal filed by theRevenue for the assessment year 2002-2003 being D.B. IncomeTax Appeal No.47/2012 (CIT, Udaipur Vs. Dr. Suresh Sharma)has held as under:- All the three issues above are exactly the same asthe three issues dealt by us in appeal no.659/Jodh/08 forA.Y. 2002-03. The assessing officer has given the similarfinding for making the additions and CIT(A) has given thesimilar findings for deleting the additions in this year also.Both the ld. DR and ld. AR agreed that facts of the case aresimilar to assessment year 2002-03 and therefore,following the order passed above in appeal no.659/Jodh/08,we dismiss all the three grounds of appeal of thedepartment.” This Court while considering the appeal filed by theRevenue for the assessment year 2002-2003 being D.B. IncomeTax Appeal No.47/2012 (CIT, Udaipur Vs. Dr. Suresh Sharma)has held as under:- “In our view, the submissions do not make out anysubstantial question of law for consideration by this Court inthis appeal. The grounds as urged and the questions assuggested essentially relate to the matters of appreciationof evidence for factual enquiry and rendering findings onfacts about the expenditure on purchase of medicines,receipt of consultation fees and expenditure at factory andhospital. Though the AO made the additions with referenceto his opinion on the material found and impounded duringthe course of survey proceedings, however, the CIT(A)disagreed with the findings of the AO after thoroughlyanalyzing the material on record and after referring to theinconsistencies in the assessment order on accountingaspects and the fact that the trading additions had alreadybeen made in the original assessment. Thereafter, theTribunal found no reason to interfere while scrutinizing thefindings recorded by the CIT(A) on relevant considerations. In an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied thatthe findings on facts have been rendered by the twoappellate authorities in accordance with law; and the ordersimpugned do not suffer from any perversity or wrongapplication of any principle of law so as to raise anysubstantial question of law. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.44/2012CIT, Udaipur Vs. Dr. Suresh Sharma Consequently and in view of the above, the appealfails and the same is, therefore, dismissed summarily.” The reasons foregoing, on all the relevant and materialaspects, equally apply to the present appeal too, which is basedon self-same grounds. Thus, following the decision aforesaidand in the same terms, this appeal also stands dismissedsummarily. (ARUN BHANSALI), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.