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.46/2012CIT, 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.494/JODH/09 for the assessment year 2006-2007,whereby, the Tribunal has affirmed the order dated 04.06.2009passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur['the CIT(A)'] partly allowing the appeal preferred by theassessee and deleting the additions of Rs.5,47,500/- on accountof consultation fees receipts and Rs.4,75,000/- on account ofoperation receipts as made by the Assessing Officer ['the AO'] inthe assessment order dated 30.12.2007. 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 2006-2007 on 02.07.2007 declaring total income ofRs.2,11,565/- besides agricultural income of Rs.67,950/-. Itappears that a survey under Section 133A of the Act wasundertaken on 29.11.2006 at the business premises of theassessee and on the basis of material found during the course ofsurvey, while notice under Section 148 of the Act was issuedrelating to assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 and forthe said assessment years assessments were completed underSection 143(3)/148 of the Act and assessment for the year2006-2007 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act.The AO, inter alia, made the additions, two of which weredeleted by the CIT(A) as noticed hereinbefore. The appealsarising out of assessment years 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 filedby revenue were decided by the Tribunal by a common order. For the assessment year 2006-2007 the Tribunal hasobserved as under:- (i)Addition on account of consultation fees receipts: “We have heard the rival parties and perused the materialon record. We find that the assessee showed receipts ofRs.11,87,585/- in A.Y. 2005-06 and this year receipts areRs.15,91,750/- which is quite reasonable. Moreoveradditions of Rs.1,27,475/- and Rs.67,950/- in respect ofundisclosed purchase and income from undisclosed sourcesrespectively have also been made and sustained whichcovers all possibilities of discrepancies in the overallreceipts/gross profit shown by the assessee in absence ofregular books. In such circumstances, it is not appropriateto make a further addition of Rs.5,47,500/- to the totalincome of the assessee. Following our findings given abovein this order for the earlier years, we uphold the order ofCIT(A) on this ground. The ground of appeal is accordinglyrejected.” (ii)Addition on account of operation receipts: “As the issue involved is exactly the same as the issue dealtby us in appeal no.251/Jodh/08 in A.Y. 2005-06, thefindings given in that respect would also apply in this yearalso. This ground of appeal is accordingly rejected.” While dealing with the assessment year 2005-2006 theTribunal has followed its findings given for the assessment year2002-2003. (ii)Addition on account of operation receipts: “As the issue involved is exactly the same as the issue dealtby us in appeal no.251/Jodh/08 in A.Y. 2005-06, thefindings given in that respect would also apply in this yearalso. This ground of appeal is accordingly rejected.” While dealing with the assessment year 2005-2006 theTribunal has followed its findings given for the assessment year2002-2003. 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 already D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.46/2012CIT, Udaipur Vs. Dr. Suresh Sharma been 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. 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.