9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble case of the assessee s own assessment order for assessment year 2013 14, non-applicability of res judicata to the income tax proceedings notwithstanding. It goes without saying that where the books of account have been rejected, the history of the case, of both earlier as well as succeeding assessment years, becomes the most relevant criterion for estimation of income. The transactions for assessment year 2013 14 having not been found to be a sham or malafide, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly applied that year s net profit rate of 0.172% to the year under consideration. CIT(A) has duly taken into consideration the afore-discussed shortcomings in the assessment order. It cannot, as such, be said that the ld. CIT(A) did not give any reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the I.T. Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.6,75,164/-, vide his order dated 30.11.2016. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Out of the total income assessed by the Assessing Officer at Rs.6,75,62,164/-, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.6,67,79,794/-. Aggrieved, the Department is in appeal. 3. The ld. D.R. has contended that the ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.6,67,79,794/-, ignoring the fact that the settled principle is that the res judicata does not apply to Income Tax Proceedings; that the ld. CIT(A) had also erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer after rejecting the books of account, wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), a sum of Rs.6,90,93,000/- is the amount transferred from the Corporation Bank to the SBI account of the assessee; that the balance amount of Rs.1,54,29,442/- represented the amounts received from the debtors, advances received from the customers and out of the previous withdrawals; that according to the ld. CIT(A), the difference in the bank deposits to the extent of Rs.1,54,29,442/- could not be properly explained by the assessee, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) estimated the turnover at Rs.77,54,34,044/- (Rs.76,00,04,602/- plus Rs.1,54,29,442/-); that the ld. CIT(A), looking to the past history of the assessee, correctly applied the net profit rate of 0.172%, as applied by the Assessing Officer, and accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Inspector, without affording any opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same. The Assessing Officer thus clearly flouted the basic natural justice principle of audi alteram partem. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer, in applying the net profit rate of 8%, arbitrarily and illegally ignored the history of net profit rates of the assessee himself. Undisputedly, in the immediately preceding assessment year 2013 14, the assessee s case stands assessed in scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, at a net profit rate of 0.172%, which has been accepted by the assessee. The Assessing Officer s order was thus a result of complete non-reading of material documentary evidence in the shape of comparable case of the assessee s own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
