IT : Where High Court while considering appeal for preceding assessment year in assessee's own case found that appellate authorities had deleted addition after analyzing material on record, said decision would equally apply for year under consideration where addition was based on self same grounds
■■■
[2013] 36 taxmann.com 4 (Rajasthan)
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Commissioner of Income-tax, Udaipur
v.
Dr. Suresn Sharma*
DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ARUN BHANSALI, JJ.
D.B. IT APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2012†
JANUARY 14, 2013
Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure [Res judicata] - Assessment year 2003-04 - Assessment in case of assessee was completed under section 143(3) - Thereafter, on basis of material found during course of survey, a notice under section 148 was issued and assessment was completed making certain additions - Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal partly allowed appeal deleting additions on account of unexplained purchase of medicine, fees and unaccounted expenditure - High Court while considering appeal filed by revenue for assessment year 2002-03 in assessee's own case in CIT v. Dr. Suresh Sharma [D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 47/2012] had held that Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with findings of Assessing Officer after thoroughly analyzing material on record and after referring to inconsistencies in assessment order on accounting aspects and fact that trading additions had already been made in original assessment - Thereafter, Tribunal found no reason to interfere while scrutinizing findings recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) on relevant considerations - It was further held that findings of facts had been rendered by two appellate authorities in accordance with law - Consequently, appeal was dismissed - Whether foregoing reasons, on all relevant and material facts, equally applied to instant appeal too, which was based on self-same grounds; therefore, instant appeal was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee]
CASES REFERRED TO
CIT v. Dr. Suresh Sharma [D.B. IT Appeal No. 47 of 2012] (para 5).
K.K. Bissa for the Appellant.
JUDGMENT
Arun Bhansali, J. - The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] has been filed by the Revenue seeking to question the order dated 09.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ['the Tribunal'] in ITA No.652/JODH/08 and C.O.No.28/JODH/2009 for the assessment year 2003-2004, whereby, the Tribunal has affirmed the order dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur ['the CIT(A)'] partly allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee and deleting the additions of Rs. 2,04,301/- on account of unexplained purchase of medicine, Rs.6,63,250/- on account of fees and Rs. 59,85,443/- as unaccounted expenditure as made by the Assessing Officer ['the AO'] in the assessment order dated 31.12.2007.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that the present appeal essentially raises issues relating to appreciation of evidence resulting in finding on facts; and no substantial question of law is involved.
3. The facts of the case may be noted thus: The assessee runs a nursing home and also owns a marble cutting plant. The assessee filed his original return of income for the assessment year 2003-2004 on 06.05.2004 declaring total income of Rs.62,350/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. It appears that thereafter, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was undertaken at the business premises of the assessee and on the basis of material found during the course of survey, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued relating to assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 and assessments were completed under Section 143 (3)/148 of the Act. The AO, inter alia, made the additions, three of 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 a common order.
4. For the assessment year 2003-2004 the Tribunal has observed as under:-
"The department has taken the following grounds in the appeal:-
| (i) | Deleting the addition of Rs.204310 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted purchase of medicine. | |
| (ii) | Deleting the addition of Rs.663250 made by the AO on account of fees. | |
| (iii) | Deleting the addition of Rs.5985443 made by the AO on account of unexplained factory and hospital expenditure. |
All the three issues above are exactly the same as the three issues dealt by us in appeal no.659/Jodh/08 for A.Y. 2002-03. The assessing officer has given the similar finding for making the additions and CIT(A) has given the similar findings for deleting the additions in this year also. Both the ld. DR and ld. AR agreed that facts of the case are similar 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 the department."
5. This Court while considering the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2002-2003 being D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.47/2012 (CIT v.Dr. Suresh Sharma) has held as under:-
"In our view, the submissions do not make out any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court in this appeal. The grounds as urged and the questions as suggested essentially relate to the matters of appreciation of evidence for factual enquiry and rendering findings on facts about the expenditure on purchase of medicines, receipt of consultation fees and expenditure at factory and hospital. Though the AO made the additions with reference to his opinion on the material found and impounded during the course of survey proceedings, however, the CIT(A) disagreed with the findings of the AO after thoroughly analyzing the material on record and after referring to the inconsistencies in the assessment order on accounting aspects and the fact that the trading additions had already been made in the original assessment. Thereafter, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere while scrutinizing the findings recorded by the CIT(A) on relevant considerations.
In an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that the findings on facts have been rendered by the two appellate authorities in accordance with law; and the orders impugned do not suffer from any perversity or wrong application of any principle of law so as to raise any substantial question of law.
Consequently and in view of the above, the appeal fails and the same is, therefore, dismissed summarily."
6. The reasons foregoing, on all the relevant and material aspects, equally apply to the present appeal too, which is based on self-same grounds. Thus, following the decision aforesaid and in the same terms, this appeal also stands dismissed summarily.
LATARegards
Prarthana Jalan
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment