9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in sustaining the assessment wrongly reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in sustaining addition of Rs.18,80,000/- in respect of credits in the bank accounts of the assessee. 3.1 That while sustaining the addition the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the source of amounts of credit in the assessee's bank account duly explained. 3.2 That the ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the source of deposits in the bank account of assessee accepted by the department in the earlier years. 4. That the appellant begs to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off." 3. Groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... source of cash deposits in the bank account. As per the reply filed by the Ld. Counsel, the assessee is a Granthi and Mukhya Sewadar of Gurdwara. The assessee has not brought on record any evidence to explain the source of cash deposits during the year. In view of these facts, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are dismissed." 6. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record as regards the source of amount of credit in the assessee's bank account which are self-explanatory. He, further submitted that in the earlier assessment year, the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the source of identical cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee which has been accepted by the department. In sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed that the Inspector has stated that the assessee has earned the income from sale of Milk as per his report in Asstt. Year 2010-11 and the only thing, which has been mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee has not brought any evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits. 11. It is submitted that this observation of the Ld. CIT(A) is vehemently contested in the sense, that when, one fact has been established during the course of assessment proceedings for Asstt. Year 2010-11 and for this year, we had filed the return in response to notice u/s 148 declaring the profit on sale of milk, the contention of the Ld.CIT(A) is not in order. 12. Another fact doubted by the Assessing Officer that the assessee is a Granthi/Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t open to the Revenue to challenge its correctness in the case of other assesses, without just cause". Here in the present case in assessee's own case, the view has been taken by CIT(A) and ITAT since the Department accepted the plea of the assessee. c. DCIT V/s United Vanaspati Ltd. (2005) 275 ITR 124 (AT) (TM) "It is also true that the principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings but equally important, is the rule of consistency, which has been held to be applicable in tax proceedings. If the facts and circumstances of the earlier year are similar, the same view should ordinarily be followed in the subsequent years." d. Radhasoami Satsang Vs CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) "Strictly speaking, res judicata does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecluded from raising point for later year before court- Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 260A" h. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) V/S INDIA HABITAT CENTRE 425 ITR 325 (DEL) "Charitable purpose- Exemption- "Any other object of general public utility"- Denial of benefits as charitable organization- Assessing Officer accepting that assessee promoted public interest as provided in proviso to section 2(15)- Merely because assessee charged for certain goods and services, activities not commercial activities- Onus on Department to prove assessee had profit motive in such activities- Principle of consistency- Finding that there was no change in nature of activities of assessee from earlier years- Assessee charitable organization and entitled to benefit." i. DCIT Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of report of the Inspector that the assessee had been carrying on the business of sale of Milk by restricting to only 6% profit on the total bank deposits of Rs. 20,96,973/- being treated as Milk Business Turn Over under the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act (APB, Pgs. 7-17). 9. In the case of "Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Leader Valves Ltd.", (Supra) the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court observed that in view the principle of consistency, the Revenue could not be permitted to raise an issue in isolation only for one year in the case of one assessee, while accepting the findings on the same issue in the case of other assesses and for other years in the case of assesse. 10. In view of the above, the department cannot be pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
