2013 (3) TMI 242 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained purchase of medicine, unaccounted fees and unaccounted expenditure - Tribunal affirmed the order of CIT(A) in deleting the additions - assessee runs a nursing home and also owns a marble cutting plant - Held that - 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. 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. Thus the findings on facts have been rendered by the two appellate authorities in accordance with law - the orders impugned do not suffer from any perversity or wrong application of any principle of law - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 2003-2004 involving additions on account of unexplained purchase of medicine, fees, and unaccounted expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appreciation of Evidence and Findings on Facts:
The appeal raised issues related to the appreciation of evidence and findings on facts, with no substantial question of law involved. The assessee, running a nursing home and owning a marble cutting plant, filed the original return of income for the assessment year 2003-2004. Following a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, a notice under Section 148 was issued for assessments. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions, which were partly deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the department's appeal on similar grounds as in previous years.

2. Additions by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) Decisions:
The Tribunal observed that the department's grounds for appeal, including additions on account of unexplained purchase of medicine, fees, and unaccounted expenditure, were similar to previous years. Both the department and the assessee agreed on the similarities with the assessment year 2002-2003. The Tribunal dismissed all three grounds of appeal, following the precedent set in the previous year's decision.

3. Judicial Precedent and Dismissal of Appeal:
Referring to a previous judgment related to the assessment year 2002-2003, the Court highlighted that the issues raised did not present any substantial question of law. The Court emphasized that the findings on facts by the appellate authorities were in accordance with the law. The Tribunal's decision was upheld as it did not suffer from any perversity or wrong application of legal principles. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed summarily based on the same grounds as the previous judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2003-2004, as it raised no substantial question of law. The decision was based on the appreciation of evidence, findings on facts, and the similarity of grounds with previous judgments, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's decision affirming the CIT(A)'s partial deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer.