THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHOPAL vs. DR. YOGIRAJ SHARMA

ITA-52-2015 (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHOPAL Vs DR. YOGIRAJ SHARMA) 29-03-2016 29.03.2016. Shri Sanjay Lal for the appellant/revenue. Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava for the respondent/assessee, on advance notice. These are appeals filed by the revenue under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, calling in question tenability of the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for various assessment years. Except for the fact that the years of assessment are different, as all questions of fact involved in the matter are co-related to each other and the question of law framed in each of the appeals are related to additions made or deletions granted either by the Commissioner (Appeals) or by the Income Tax Tribunal, we propose to deal with the matter jointly and dispose of all the appeals by this common order. On the basis of search and seizure conducted in the premises of respondent Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, finding concealment of income, action was taken and after orders were passed by the Assessing Officer, matter travelled in appeal to Commissioner (Appeal) and vide orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) for the assessment years 2002-2003 to 2008-2009, various additions were made and deletions were also granted. All these additions and deletions ordered by the Commissioner (Appeal) were further challenged both by the revenue and the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and by a detailed order passed, for various assessment period, the Tribunal has decided the issue. We have considered the questions of law framed in each of these appeals, and we find that they pertain to the additions made or the deletions granted by the appellate authority. These additions and deletions are based on scrutiny of the records or the account books and the orders passed by the Tribunal indicate that they are based on factual assertions of various material that were available on record and the additions or deletions have been ordered after evaluating the factual aspects of the matter and the orders passed are based on appreciation of the documentary evidence and on scrutiny of the facts based on record, the orders concurrent in nature passed by both the Commissioner (Appeal) and the Tribunal are nothing but evaluation of the account books, documents and various other evidence available on record. In the assessment so made, on scrutiny of the records, we find that no substantial questions of law are involved warranting consideration in these appeals under section 260- A, as we find each and every addition either upheld by the Tribunal or interfered with by the Tribunal and by the Commissioner (Appeal) to be nothing but analysis of the account books, documents and various other material available on record and the decision is taken after due analysis of the same. The same being in accordance with the requirement of law, we find no error apparent on the face of the record warranting consideration. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE