C.I.T.CENTRAL UDAIPUR vs. DR.SURESH SHARMA

Date of Judgment 14th January, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'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 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.494/JODH/09 for the assessment year 2006-2007, whereby, the Tribunal has affirmed the order dated 04.06.2009 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.5,47,500/- on account of consultation fees receipts and Rs.4,75,000/- on account of operation receipts as made by the Assessing Officer ['the AO'] in the assessment order dated 30.12.2007. 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.

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 2006-2007 on 02.07.2007 declaring total income of Rs.2,11,565/- besides agricultural income of Rs.67,950/-. It appears that a survey under Section 133A of the Act was undertaken on 29.11.2006 at the business premises of the assessee and on the basis of material found during the course of survey, while notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued relating to assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 and for the said assessment years assessments were completed under Section 143(3)/148 of the Act and assessment for the year 2006-2007 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act.

The AO, inter alia, made the additions, two 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.

For the assessment year 2006-2007 the Tribunal has observed as under:- (i)

Addition on account of consultation fees receipts: “We have heard the rival parties and perused the material on record. We find that the assessee showed receipts of Rs.11,87,585/- in A.Y. 2005-06 and this year receipts are Rs.15,91,750/- which is quite reasonable. Moreover additions of Rs.1,27,475/- and Rs.67,950/- in respect of undisclosed purchase and income from undisclosed sources respectively have also been made and sustained which covers all possibilities of discrepancies in the overall receipts/gross profit shown by the assessee in absence of regular books. In such circumstances, it is not appropriate to make a further addition of Rs.5,47,500/- to the total income of the assessee. Following our findings given above in this order for the earlier years, we uphold the order of CIT(A) on this ground. The ground of appeal is accordingly rejected.” (ii)

Addition on account of operation receipts: “As the issue involved is exactly the same as the issue dealt by us in appeal no.251/Jodh/08 in A.Y. 2005-06, the findings given in that respect would also apply in this year also. This ground of appeal is accordingly rejected.”

While dealing with the assessment year 2005-2006 the Tribunal has followed its findings given for the assessment year 2002-2003.

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, Udaipur Vs. 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.”

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. (ARUN BHANSALI), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. A.K.Chouhan/- 68