2022 (8) TMI 1023 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision in Income Tax case, citing unexplained deposits and turnover estimate.

The Income Tax Officer-6 (2) Lucknow Versus Shri Mohd. Sameer Qureshi

The Income Tax Officer-6 (2) Lucknow Versus Shri Mohd. Sameer Qureshi - TMI Issues:1. Addition of Rs.6,67,79,794 - Res Judicata principle in Income Tax Proceedings2. Deletion of addition made by Assessing Officer without reasonable cause3. Denial of opportunity to Assessing Officer to present viewsAnalysis:Issue 1: Addition of Rs.6,67,79,794 - Res Judicata principleThe appellant challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs.6,67,79,794 by the ld. CIT(A), arguing that the principle of res judicata does not apply in Income Tax Proceedings. The Department contended that the deletion was erroneous. However, the ld. CIT(A) found that the difference in bank deposits was unexplained, leading to an estimated turnover of Rs.77,54,34,044. The appellant's argument was supported by the history of the assessee's turnover and net profit rate from the previous assessment year, which the Assessing Officer failed to consider. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the findings were well-versed and devoid of any infirmity.Issue 2: Deletion of addition by Assessing OfficerThe Assessing Officer had added the credits in the bank accounts to arrive at a turnover of Rs.84,45,27,044 and applied an 8% net profit rate. However, the CIT(A) noted that certain credits were already included in the turnover and found unexplained credits of Rs.1,54,29,442, leading to an estimated turnover of Rs.77,54,34,044. The Tribunal highlighted that the Assessing Officer failed to provide the appellant with an opportunity to rebut the Inspector's Report, violating the principle of natural justice. The CIT(A) considered the history of the appellant's net profit rates from the previous year and correctly applied the net profit rate of 0.172% for the current year.Issue 3: Denial of opportunity to Assessing OfficerThe Department argued that the Assessing Officer was not given a reasonable opportunity to present views, leading to the deletion of the addition. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had adequately addressed the shortcomings in the assessment order and provided valid reasons for the deletion. The Tribunal rejected the Department's grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings as well-founded and free from any defects.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision based on a thorough analysis of the issues raised and the relevant legal principles applied.