9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1753 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69A - Estimation of income - principle of res judicata - HELD THAT - Since the AO in the assessee s own case for assessment year 2014-15 has adopted the profit rate at 6.34% under identical circumstances therefore for this year also the same rate should have been adopted. It is the settled legal proposition that the principle of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings as every year is separate and distinct. Merely because the AO has adopted the profit rate at 6.34% in the preceding year the assessee cannot claim that the same rate of profit should be adopted for the huge cash deposits made in the bank account the nature and source of which remained unexplained. Considering the fact that the assessment proceedings had taken place during the Covid-19 period and the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC s also ex-parte order due to non-appearance of the assessee therefore we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Presented and Considered
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Justification for Addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69A of the Income Tax Act empowers the Assessing Officer to make an addition to the income of the assessee where any amount is found credited in the books of account or in the bank account of the assessee, the nature and source of which is unexplained to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The burden lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of such credits. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year and had failed to respond to notices issued under section 148 and 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144, treating the unexplained deposits totaling Rs. 1,13,24,622/- as income under section 69A. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition as the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence regarding the nature and source of the deposits and credits. Key Evidence and Findings: The key facts were the deposits of Rs. 9,04,000/- against vehicle loans in a cooperative society and total bank credits of Rs. 1,04,20,622/- during the financial year 2014-15 as per Form 26AS data. The assessee did not file returns or respond to notices, resulting in the Assessing Officer's addition. Application of Law to Facts: The unexplained nature of the deposits and the assessee's non-compliance with statutory notices justified the addition under section 69A. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action on this ground. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the addition should be computed by applying the profit rate of 6.34% adopted in the preceding year's assessment, rather than adding the entire deposits as income. The Department countered that the principle of res judicata does not apply in income tax proceedings and each assessment year is distinct. The Tribunal agreed with the Department's submission, emphasizing the separate nature of each assessment year and the need for the assessee to explain the deposits for the impugned year independently. Conclusions: The addition under section 69A was legally sustainable given the assessee's failure to explain the deposits and non-compliance with notices. 2. Dismissal of Appeal for Want of Prosecution by CIT(A)/NFAC Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellate authority has the power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution if the appellant fails to appear or comply with procedural requirements. However, principles of natural justice require that the appellant be given a fair opportunity to present the case. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A)/NFAC due to the assessee's non-appearance despite multiple opportunities. The assessee's counsel submitted that the notices were issued during the Covid-19 pandemic via the ITBA portal and were sent to the address of the then Counsel, who did not inform the assessee. This led to the assessee's non-compliance and non-appearance. Key Evidence and Findings: The record showed multiple opportunities granted to the assessee, but no compliance. The pandemic context and communication issues were highlighted by the assessee's counsel as mitigating circumstances. Application of Law to Facts: While the Tribunal acknowledged the procedural lapses and the pandemic situation, it emphasized the need for the assessee to comply and appear. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after granting one final opportunity to the assessee. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued for upholding the dismissal due to non-prosecution, while the assessee sought relief based on Covid-19 related communication failures. The Tribunal balanced these views and leaned towards ensuring fairness by allowing a final chance. Conclusions: The dismissal of the appeal was set aside, and the issue was restored for fresh adjudication with directions for the assessee to cooperate fully. 3. Applicability of Res Judicata and Consistency in Profit Rate Adoption Legal Framework and Precedents: It is a well-settled principle that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings because each assessment year is a separate and distinct unit. Consistency in adopting profit rates or methods is not mandatory unless supported by facts and explanations for the particular year. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated that the assessee cannot claim the same rate of profit (6.34%) adopted in the previous year's assessment for the current year merely on the basis of past treatment. The unexplained nature of deposits in the impugned year warranted independent scrutiny and determination. Key Evidence and Findings: The prior year assessment was based on different facts and circumstances, and the current year involved substantial unexplained deposits. The absence of any explanation from the assessee precluded application of the earlier rate. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that each year's income is to be determined on its own merits and facts, rejecting the assessee's plea for adopting the previous year's profit rate. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's argument for uniform treatment was rejected in view of the statutory position and factual differences. Conclusions: The principle of res judicata was held inapplicable, and the Assessing Officer was justified in not applying the previous year's profit rate. 4. Procedural Fairness and Opportunity to the Assessee During Covid-19 Legal Framework and Precedents: Principles of natural justice require that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity to comply with notices and present his case. The extraordinary circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic have been recognized by courts as relevant in assessing procedural fairness. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the difficulties posed by the pandemic and the fact that notices were issued electronically to the address of the then Counsel, who failed to inform the assessee. This contributed to the non-compliance and non-appearance of the assessee. Key Evidence and Findings: The record showed multiple notices issued via the ITBA portal during the pandemic and the assessee's claim of being unaware due to counsel's failure to communicate. Application of Law to Facts: Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter and direct the Assessing Officer to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present his case, emphasizing the need for the assessee to appear and cooperate without seeking adjournments. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's reliance on procedural non-compliance was balanced against the assessee's plea for fairness due to pandemic-related issues. Conclusions: The Tribunal's directions ensured procedural fairness and an opportunity for the assessee to substantiate his case. Significant Holdings "It is the settled legal proposition that the principle of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings as every year is separate and distinct." "Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law." "The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on the appointed date and make his submissions, if any, without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law." The Tribunal established the core principles that additions under section 69A require explanation of the source of deposits, that each assessment year is distinct for tax proceedings, and that procedural fairness must be ensured especially in extraordinary circumstances such as the Covid-19 pandemic. On the issue of addition under section 69A, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's addition but remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a final opportunity to comply and explain. On the dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution, the Tribunal set aside the ex parte dismissal and restored the appeal for fresh hearing. On the plea for applying the previous year's profit rate, the Tribunal rejected the claim based on the principle that each year is separate and distinct.
|
