Shri Girdhar Gopal Lahoti v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANJAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR DB Income Tax Appeal No.14/2012 Shri Girdhar Gopal LahotiVs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Date:07/05/2012 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRAHON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, for appellant. Heard on the question of admission. Question raised in the appeal is whether theorder passed by the ITAT affirming the order of CIT(A)with respect to addition of Rs.2,14,309/- isappropriate. The Assessing Officer has made additionof Rs.2,14,309/- which has been affirmed by CIT(A)as well as by the ITAT. In Para-4.3 of its order dated2.12.2010, CIT(A) has given following reasons foraffirming the addition of Rs.2,14,309/-:- “4.3 As mentioned by AO in the assessmentorder, appellant has shown liability ofRs.2,14,309/- in the name of M/s. ShreeGuru Kripa Stones Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently inthe revised return filed by him no suchliability was shown and it was claimed thatthe amount has been paid in cash on variousdates. This claim of the appellant is only anafter thought. AO has mentioned in detail inthe assessment order that there are variouscutting and overwriting in different bills. Thisindicates that appellant has manipulated hisaccounts as per his convenience. This alsoproves that the liability of Rs.2,14,309/-shown by him in the original return wasbogus. AO is therefore justified in makingaddition of this amount. The addition isconfirmed. Ground No.2 is thus dismissed.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has submitted that elaborate discussion hasnot been made by ITAT in the impugned order. Thus,the order passed by ITAT is bad in law. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at length and going through the orderspassed by the AO as well as CIT(A), we find thataddition of Rs.2,14,309/- was made on substantialground which has been affirmed by the ITAT. In theassessment order, appellant has shown liability ofRs.2,14,309/-. Subsequently, in revised return filed byhim, no such liability has been shown and it wasclaimed that the amount has been paid in cash onvarious dates. This has been held to be anafterthought. AO has mentioned in detail variousoverwriting and cutting which have been made indifferent bills. The finding of manipulation has, thus,been recorded which cannot be said to be unwarrantedin the instant case. Therefore, addition which has beenmade is based on substantial ground and liability ofRs.2,14,309/- has been found to be bogus. In view of findings of fact which have been recorded at three levels, we find no ground to interferein the appeal. Even otherwise, it was not necessary todiscuss the matter elaborately by the ITAT whileaffirming the finding of CIT(A). We find the reasonsassigned by AO as well as CIT(A) to be just and proper.No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.It is hereby dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I)J. (ARUN MISHRA)CJ. GS All corrections made in the judgment/order have beenincorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Govind Sharma, PA