TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd -Vs- Municipal Council of Broken Hill. In the most celebrated case of Radhaswami Stasang [ 1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] held that each assessment is a separate unit. Decision in one year may not carry forward and held for a subsequent year. An issue which is significant only for a particular year once decided cannot be held res judicata for a subsequent year. The evidence of one asst. year cannot be utilized for another asst. year without necessary material records or evidences. It is settled law by various Courts that income could not be estimated for the other years on the basis of evidence found for one particular year, especially when there was no incriminating evidence pertained to any other assessment year. Also held that the theory of extrapolation is not logical method for determining the actual total Income and it is established law that the assessment should be made on the basis of only incriminating documents found during the course of survey/search proceedings. Further entire edifice of the addition has been made by the AO only in the realm of extrapolation of the figures of on-money received by the assessee before the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act, relating to those earlier assessment years does not lead to similar undisclosed income for other subsequent assessment year. 4.1.1 The AO could not telescope additional disclosures for particular years in settlement proceedings and made addition in subsequent years. The AO has not realized that the evidence pertains to the period preceding 30-11-12, and that there is no evidence to hold the view that unaccounted on-money in cash has been received by the assessee firm subsequent to 1- 4-2013. The business conditions undergo frequent changes and what has been received in a certain project or in a certain year cannot become a thumb rule for all times to come, especially keeping in mind the slow down and recession in the real estate sector. 4.1.2 The addition of 30% of total advance against booking has been accepted/ made in the order of Settlement Commission but the same is related to search years only and not for the current year under consideration. The assessee has hiked the prices and the same has now been taken by the assessee in books itself. It is very clear that if at all any such thing existed in search years; the same is not there now in the current as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 962 SC 53, Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the tax matters, there is no question of res judicata because each year's assessment is final only for that year and does not govern later years. In Radhaswami Satsang 193 ITR 321, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that each assessment is a separate unit. Decision in one year may not carry forward and held for a subsequent year. An issue which is significant only for a particular year once decided cannot be held res judicata for a subsequent year. The evidence of one year cannot be utilized for another year. The said evidence material cannot be made the basis for working out the income in the hands of the assessee for other years for which no incriminating documents or entries were found in search. 4.1.6 Reliance is further placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Thakkar Popatlal Velji Sales Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No. 2266 of 2013, judgment dated 29.03.2016, which has confirmed the ratio laid down by the aforesaid Pune Bench of Tribunal. The claim of Revenue in the said decision was that where the register evidencing the sales were found for certain period, the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal on these grounds is Allowed. 4. Aggrieve against the same, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,06,93,612/- made by Assessing Officer on account of profit on on-money of the Income Tax Act,1961 (2) The appellant reserves his right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date; the appeal is finally heard for disposal. 4.1. The Ld Sr. DR Mr. Ashish Porwal appearing for the Revenue submitted that Ld. CIT[A] erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,06,93,612/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of profit of on-money which was admitted by the assessee before the Settlement Commission pursuant to the search action for the earlier assessment years. Since many of the construction activities are on-going projects, the AO is correct in making addition on account of On Money for this assessment year also, which is liable to be restored and the Revenue appeal is to be allowed. 5. Per contra Ld. Counsel Shri Ashish Goyal appearing for the assessee submitted before us a Paper Book consisting of v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Search action the assessee revised the prices of the flats/plots and submitted comparative price changes of various projects of the assessee, wherein there is a difference of 30% increase in price of flats/plots which are ranging from Rs. 289 to Rs. 1150/= for each projects namely Atlantis Duplexs, Atlantis Flats, Heritage Duplexs, Tulip Green Plots/Flats, Tulip Heights, etc. [which is available at page no.116 of the Paper book]. This revised price is reflected in the Books of accounts and offered for taxation by the assessee. However the Ld AO while passing the assessment order did not accepted the revised/hiked price of the plots, but estimated the receipt of on-money at 30% on the sales and advances for this asst year 2014-15 and determined the additional income as Rs. 2,06,93,612/=. In our considered view, the Ld AO has neither justified the above addition nor accepted the increased price made by the assessee pursuant to the search action. 6.2. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Installment Supply Pvt Ltd -Vs- Union of India reported in 1962 AIR 53 SC clearly held that in Tax matters, there is no question of res judicata, because each year s assessment is final only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
