TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 holding that the assessee had earned commission income @₹ 50 per lacs on the turnover of ₹ 29,84,17,709/- and had made addition of ₹ 14,92,088/-. Therefore, we note that in previous year the Department has accepted the claim of the assessee that assessee had earned commission income @₹ 50 per lacs on the turnover of ₹ 29,84,17,709/-. It is a well settled legal position that factual matters which permeate through more than one assessment year, if the Revenue has accepted a particular's view or proposition in the past, it is not open for the Revenue to take a entirely contrary or different stand in a later year on the same issue, involving identical facts unless and until a cogent case is made out by the AO on the basis of change in facts. Assessee is engaged in cheque discounting business. However, considering the time value of money, we note that rate of @₹ 50 per lacs, is lower side, therefore we direct the assessing officer to compute the disallowance @ ₹ 75 per lacs. Principle of consistency are applicable to the assessee on cheque discounting business and not on the rate of ₹ 50 per lacs, therefore, considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.2010 (Rs.) 1 M/s Shri Ganesh Enterprise Union Bank of India 311001010055354 94,44,50,719/- 2 M/s Om Vinayak Enterprise Union Bank of India 311001010055355 30,32,097/- 3 M/s Om Riddhi Enterprises Union Bank of India 311001010055356 23,71,332/- 4 M/s Kaushal Corporation Union Bank of India 311001010055357 3,23,72,564/- Total 98,22,26,712/- The assessing officer noted that assessee has not furnished any details and evidences including source of above mentioned credits/deposits in his bank accounts during the year under consideration. Thus, on perusal of the records, it was found by assessing officer that there are deposits/credits of ₹ 98,22,26,712/- in the bank accounts of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over during the course of enquiry/verification proceedings. Further, assessee did not produce any details/evidence in respect of source of credit entries in his bank account or turnover or any other called for details during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, assessee did not furnish any proof regarding turnover and cheque discounting business during the course of appellate proceedings. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that every assessment year is a different assessment year and assessee failed to establish that he is engaged in business of cheques discounting or not. The Ld CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that the assessee is to explain each credit entry if the AO doubts genuineness of amount credited in his bank accounts. The ld DR further submitted that assessee has deposited cash in bank and cheque in his bank account during the assessment year under consideration. The total amount of cash and cheques deposited by the assessee comes to ₹ 98,22,26,712/-. The Assessing Officer had made the disallowances to the tune of ₹ 98,22,26,712/-. However, the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the substantial addition by holding that assessee is engaged in the business of che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order dated 25.11.2016 holding that the assessee had earned commission income @₹ 50 per lacs on the turnover of ₹ 29,84,17,709/- and had made addition of ₹ 14,92,088/-. Therefore, we note that in previous year the Department has accepted the claim of the assessee that assessee had earned commission income @₹ 50 per lacs on the turnover of ₹ 29,84,17,709/-. It is a well settled legal position that factual matters which permeate through more than one assessment year, if the Revenue has accepted a particular's view or proposition in the past, it is not open for the Revenue to take a entirely contrary or different stand in a later year on the same issue, involving identical facts unless and until a cogent case is made out by the Assessing Officer on the basis of change in facts. For that we rely on the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court in RadhasoamiSatsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC), wherein it was held as follows: We are aware of the fact that, strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
