Dr. Ishtiyaq Ahmad ,, Ambedkar Nagar vs Assessee

Dr. Ishtiyaq Ahmad, Vs. Income Tax Officer-III, Kaskhari Ambedkar Nagar. Faizabad. PAN:AGAPA1973G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Alok Mitra, D. R. Date of hearing 20/05/2014 Date of pronouncement 13/06/2014

ORDER

PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.

This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT (A)-I, Lucknow dated 11/02/2013 for assessment year 2006- 2007.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

"1. Because the order of the learned authorities below is bad in law and without proper appreciation of facts of the case.

2. Because the appellant is a BEMS. The appellant purchases medicine and after adding his professional fee he issues is to the patients. The trading result is given as under:

2 Opening stock 66,190.00 Sale 11,07,840.00 Purchase 9,87,879.00 Closing stock 8,38,275.00 10,54,069.00 11,91,115.00 G.P. 1,37,046.00

G.P. shown 1,37,046.00 G.P. rate 12.37% by assessee Added by AO 9,87,879.00 G.P. after 11,24,925.00 G.P. rate 101.54% addition N.P. shown by 92,650.00 N.P. rate 8.36% Assessee

N.P. after 9,87,879.00 Addition by 10,80,529.00 N.P. rate 89.17% A.O.

3. Because the sale/receipt has been accepted by the authorities below.

4. Because the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.9,87,879/- added by the learned Assessing Officer which is bad in law and without proper appreciation of facts of the case. The addition made/confirmed is liable to be deleted.

5. Because the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the unexplained deposit at Rs.41,850/- (134500-92450) in bank account No.006810002110 which is bad in law and without proper appreciation of facts of the case. There was opening balance in this account Rs.22,814/- and deposit Rs.1,45,677/- and after deducting withdrawals the closing balance is Rs.10,774/-. The deposit is verifiable from books of account kept and covered out of professional receipt and the amount sustained by learned CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.

6. Because the addition made for house hold expenses is highly excessive and liable to be deleted."

3 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of notice and hence, we proceed to decide this appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee.

4. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned D.R. of the Revenue and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. we find that regarding disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.9,87,879/- claimed by the assessee as cost of dispensed medicine, it is held by CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to produce even a single voucher in support of his claim. He has also noted that during appellate proceedings also, the assessee neither produced vouchers nor made any prayer under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules to accept the same as additional evidence. Under these facts, it was held by him that since there is no evidence to show that these purchases are genuine and the expenses have been wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business, the addition is justified. Since nothing has been brought on record before us to controvert this finding of CIT(A), we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of CIT(A).

6. Regarding the second addition, upheld by learned CIT(A) of Rs.41,850/- out of unexplained deposit in bank, we find that cash deposit was made by the assessee in bank to the extent of Rs.1,34,500/-. It is noted by CIT(A) in para 5.1 of his order that there is no cash withdrawal from bank except for house hold purposes which could explain these cash deposits. It is also noted that the profit from the business has been 4

declared at Rs.92,650/- and the CIT(A) allowed credit for the same and deleted the addition to that extent out of total cash deposit in bank and confirmed only balance amount of Rs.41,850/-. Considering these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue.

7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)

Sd/. Sd/.

(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated:13/06/2014. *C.L.Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar