9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. - ITA No. 322/JP/2014 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2016 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri G.G. Mundra, CA For The Revenue : Shri Raj Mehra, JCIT - DR ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)- I, Jaipur dated 06-03-2014 for the assessment year 2003-04 raising therein mainly following grounds:- (i) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 3.00 lacs made to the income of the assessee by the AO on account of alleged statement recorded at the time of survey u/s 133A of I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the totality of the facts placed before him. (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003- 04 consequent to notice u/s 148, declared an income of ₹ 1,14,913/- comprising of ₹ 22,613/- from his utensil business and ₹ 92,300/- as additional income from business on account of negative cash as per impounded papers/ documents. The AO accepted the said declared income from business at ₹ 22,613/- but additional income of ₹ 92,300/- declared by the assessee as addition u/s 68 and as per calculation made on page 3 of assessment order the AO worked out unexplained purchases of ₹ 17,664/- which was assessed as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and further made disallowance of ₹ 17,664/- under proviso to Section 69C and besides these the AO also added the amount of ₹ 3.00 lacs on account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cepted that stock found in course of survey amounting to ₹ 12,78,794/- and investment in construction of house amounting to ₹ 15.00 lacs got explained from the accounts prepared and returns filed by assessee for A.Y. 2003-04 to 2008- 09. The addition of ₹ 15,69,673/- in A.Y. 2008-09 made by AO is on account of unexplained investment in house over and above ₹ 15.00 lacs which has been made on the basis of report of Valuation Officer, against which appeal has been filed by assessee which is pending before ld. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur. It is further contended that when the additions in subsequent year have been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) then there was no justification to sustain the additions in this year. 2.4 The ld. DR on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee was found to be owner of flourishing utensils business and construction of house was also made without disclosing the sources. Due to assessee's voluntary admission, the Department did not conduct further enquiries or invoke the rigor of conservative tax proceedings as a gesture of goodwill which has been misused by the assessee by manipulative distortion of books. Thus the relief granted in subsequent years is based on misrepresentation of facts and cannot apply as an estoppels for year in question. It is settled law that every year is a separate unit of assessment and principles of res judicata are not applicable to income tax proceedings. Therefore, no inference is called for in the order of the ld. CIT(A). The non-filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
