Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 617 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - assessment was reopened for assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05 on the basis of the ADIT and DDIT report in which it has been stated that there are cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee - Held that:- Having relied upon the said report, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act after issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act which was responded by the assessee. In assessment years 2000-01 to 2002-03, where the reopening was done on the same facts, the Tribunal has held the reopening to be bad and invalid and quashed the assessment framed consequent thereto. Therefore, in the impugned assessment year, we do not find any justification to take a contrary view. So far as the applicability of principle of res-judicata in Income-tax proceedings are concerned, we agree with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that principle of res-judicata are not applicable in the Income-tax proceedings and every assessment year is independent assessment year, but it has been repeatedly held through various judicial pronouncements that rule of consistency must invariably be followed in Income-tax proceedings. If a particular view is taken in one assessment year, the same should be followed in other assessment year or succeeding assessment year unless and until contrary facts are brought on record. The order of the Tribunal in the immediately preceding years, where the reopening made on the same facts under section 147 of the Act was held to be invalid by the Tribunal repeatedly in three assessment years, should be followed in the instant assessment year. We accordingly, following the said order of the Tribunal, hold that the reopening of assessment is bad and accordingly the assessment framed consequent thereto deserves to be quashed. Accordingly we annul the assessments for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 framed consequent to the bad reopening. Since the assessment is annulled, we find no justification to decide the issues on merit. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of cash deposit in different bank accounts of the assessee - Held that:- Assessing Officer has made addition of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee having placed strong reliance upon the statement of Shri. Mukesh Rajani, Auditor of the assessee-company who deposed that the books of account of the company were produced before him in the form of computer printout. But this statement was never confronted to the assessee nor the assessee was allowed to cross-examine the same. Therefore, the statement of Shri. Mukesh Rajani cannot be relied on for making the addition. But the assessee has also not produced the details of the persons/debtors from whom he received cash for its deposits in the bank. From the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this issue was not properly examined by the lower authorities. Before us the assessee has also furnished the details of various persons from who cash was received, but it requires a proper verification by the Assessing Officer. In the light of these facts, we are of the view that this issue requires a fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer and we accordingly set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of expenditure incurred on deposit of earnest money with the Bombay Stock Exchange - CIT(A) deleted disallowance - Held that:- The assessee has taken the decision in the interest of business to allow Bombay Stock Exchange to forfeit its earnest money, as the assessee was not in a position to deposit the balance amount in the interest of business. In any case, the assessee has suffered a loss of ₹ 5 lakhs and the same should be allowed as revenue expenditure. Since we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), we confirm his order on this issue.- Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of advance as on 31.3.2006 and debited in the profit and loss account during the year - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- The liability was crystalised in the impugned assessment year therefore, the assessee has rightly debited the said amount in the profit and loss account and there is no infirmity therein. Having agreed with the order of the ld. CIT(A), we confirm the same. Accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|