TMI Blog1975 (11) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the present assessment year ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, there is material to sustain the finding of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was income of the assessee from undisclosed sources? " The assessment year is 1960-61. The previous year ends on March 31, 1960. The return was filed by the assessee showing an income of Rs. 5,944. In the course of the assessment proceedings it was found by the ITO that the assessee had an account in the names of two firms and in that account she had show deposits of Rs. 1 lakh made by her in those two firms. She was asked to explain the source of these to deposits but she has refused to do so by saying that the ITO has no jurisdiction to call for such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompletely different from the assessment of income for those years and those earlier assessment orders are final and cannot be disturbed in a subsequent year of assessment. But we are not impressed by his contentions. The Tribunal has rejected the assessee's case that Rs. 1,00,000 was saved or accumulated by her in the earlier years, which has not been questioned in this reference. Further, the earlier assessment orders do not throw any light on the question of saving of this amount. Assessment order is final so far and as far as the particular year of assessment is concerned but it is merely a piece of evidence in a subsequent year of assessment. An earlier assessment order, like any other piece of evidence, may be accepted or rejected in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in past years. If they do so we will certainly interfere in appropriate cases when the matters come to us. But that is not to say that the I.T. authorities can never depart from their previous findings. If new facts come to light or if an ITO finds that his predecessor failed to take into consideration some material facts though available he would certainly be entitled to arrive at his own decision unhampered by the decision of predecessor, of course, after giving due weight to what was said by him. " We respectfully agree with the above decision and accordingly the submissions of Dr.Pal must fail. Dr. Pal did not press question No. 2 before us and, therefore, we decline to answer it. In this view of the matter, we return our ans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
