TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the income of the assessee. It is not in doubt that these balance sheets were filed before the Assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings as well as the before the Ld. CIT(A) but the same were not considered by them while deciding on the merits of the case. Apparently, the explanation given by the assessee has been rejected without assigning any reason. To our mind, if the assessee's explanation of having the opening cash in hand was to be disbelieved, there should have been cogent reasoning behind the same. Therefore, we accept the assessee's contention that as on 31.3.2010 the assessee had a closing balance of cash in hand of ₹ 12,61,473.32 which ought to have been considered for the purposes of explaining the source of cash deposits in the bank accounts. Disbelieving the assessee's contention having earned tuition income - Again it remains undisputed that the Department has accepted that the assessee had earned tuition fee in preceding assessment years, as is evident from the copies of the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act read with section 147 of the Act for assessment year 2010-11. Not only this, the assessee's re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that the return originally filed may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 2.1. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to explain the source of cash deposit of ₹ 13,40,000/- and in response, the assessee stated before the Assessing officer (AO) that deposit was from the closing balance of cash-in hand in the immediately preceding assessment year amounting to ₹ 12,61,473/- and was also partly out of cash withdrawals of ₹ 3 lacs from Axis bank. The assessee was asked to furnish cash book/cash flow statement but the same were not furnished. The Assessing officer gave benefit of cash withdrawal of ₹ 3 lacs from the Axis Bank and counted such withdrawal towards availability of cash for the purpose of cash deposit but proceeded to treat the remaining amount of ₹ 10,40,000/- as unexplained and added the same to the income of the assessee u/s. 69 of the Act. The Assessing officer also proceeded to add the tuition fee of ₹ 2,03,600/- as income from undisclosed sources. The assessment was completed at an income of ₹ 12,84,780/-. 2.2. The assessee preferred an appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the assessee could not produce any books of account or cash flow statement in support of her claim. As in assessment year 2011-12, this year also the re-assessment was completed by treating the cash deposit of ₹ 10,40,000/- as unexplained income u/s. 69 of the Act and tuition income of ₹ 2,03,600/- as unexplained income u/s. 69A of the Act. The re-assessment proceedings was completed at a total income of ₹ 12,43,600/-. 2.4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority which was dismissed and now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of appeal by raising following grounds of appeal:- 1145/Chd/2019 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer for reopening of the case u/s. 148 as there was no reason to believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment and also wrong reasons have been recorded for the purposes of reopening of the case and, therefore, the assessment deserves to be quashed. 2. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the confirmation of addition of ₹ 10,40,000/- u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year, then casting a doubt on the same cash balance in the subsequent assessment year was totally incorrect. It was submitted that the Assessing officer has not brought any evidence on record to establish that the assessee had spent the amount of cash withdrawals somewhere else, and, therefore, in the absence of any adverse material against the assessee on record, the explanation of the assessee could not have been rejected. 3.2. With regard to the tuition income, it was submitted that the assessee is a qualified B.Ed. and she lives in a small town i.e. Jagraon and imparts tuition for the past many years and this source of income had been regularly accepted in previous assessment years and as well as in subsequent assessment years. It was also submitted that this is an unorganised sector and the assessee does not issue any tuition fee receipt as the same is never asked for by the students. However, the assessee does file income and expenditure account and the balance sheet which have always been regularly filed before the Income Tax Department along with the return of income and, therefore, without pointing out any defect in such documents, the source of income from tuiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. The facts in both the years under appeal are not in dispute. In both the years under consideration, the assessee has declared income from tuition fee in her return of income and in both the years there were cash deposits in the bank account being maintained by the assessee. The Assessing officer added the cash deposits to the income of the assessee u/s. 69 of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee could not explain the source of deposits. The assessee's contention regarding the tuition fee having been received was also disbelieved and the same was also added to the income of the assessee u/s. 69A as 'income from undisclosed sources'. In both the years, these additions were made subsequent to the reopening of the case based on information received from Investigation Wing of the Department which, in turn, had received the information from the Enforcement Directorate. It was the assessee's contention before the Assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) that the source of cash deposits was the balance of cash brought forward from earlier assessment years and that the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... soami Satsang Vs. CIT reported in 193 ITR 321 (SC), the conclusion reached in earlier years is binding on subsequent years and should be followed unless there is a material shift in the facts of the case. Therefore, we do not concur with the findings of the authorities below on the issue of not accepting the assessee's of having received income from tuition fee. Thus, in assessment year 2011-12, on merits, we hold that the lower authorities had no justifiable reason to make the impugned additions. Therefore, the assessee succeeds on ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the since the assessee has not pressed ground No. 1 challenging the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 148 of the Act, the same stands dismissed. 6. In the result, the assesses appeal bearing No. 1144/Chd/2019 stands partly allowed. 7. Coming to the assessee's appeal bearing No. 1145/Chd/2022 for assessment year 2013-14, here again, we note that the assessee had filed the copy of the balance sheets for the years ending 31.03.2012 and 31.3.2013 before the lower authorities and the closing balance of cash in hand as on 31.3.2012 was ₹ 12,58,949.39, whereas, the assessee's cash deposit during the year under c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
