TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee, an individual, is a Government contractor. Return of income for the relevant year was filed on 31/10/2008 at a total income of Rs.6,25,670/-, accompanied by audit report u/s. 44AB dated 24/10/2007. The assessee failing to comply with the statutory notices, information was called for by the Assessing Officer (AO) from the Assistant Commissioner of Trade-tax, Basti and Executive Engineer, Drainage Khand-2, Basti u/s. 133(6) of the Act. Figures of contract receipt, thus obtained, were compared with that disclosed by the assessee per his audited profit & loss account furnished along with the return of income, and a difference of Rs.64.03 lakhs discovered. The assessee had, thus, suppressed his receipts for the year to that extent. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate authority, who can only disturb his finding, therefore, where the same is not reasonable, i.e., by showing any infirmity in the estimate as made by the assessing authority. Reliance was placed by him on the decision in the case of CST vs. Esufali (H.M.) Abdulali (H.M.) [1973] 90 ITR 271 (SC) and Kachwala Gems vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC), for advancing the said proposition. 3.2 The ld. A.R., on the other hand, would rely on the order by the tribunal in the assessee's case for assessment year 2005-2006 (supra), placing a copy of the same on record, further submitting that the tribunal had considered the facts of the case, and which are the same as for the year under reference, so that the findin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same cannot be interfered with, including by the Appellate Tribunal. The law in the matter is well-settled, and admits of no ambivalence, and the decisions cited at bar by the ld. D.R. are to the same effect. In fact, even as explained by the jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Smt. Swapna Roy [2011] 331 ITR 367 (All), an appellate authority is bound to assign reason/s for differing from the view of the subordinate authority. In the facts of that case, the tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeal following its earlier orders in the assessee's own case. In further appeal, the hon'ble High Court held that it was incumbent on the tribunal (or any appellate authority) to discuss the material facts and pleadings on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thin his rights and, rather, obliged to do so based on the facts and circumstances for the current year, which may well be different from the preceding year/s, i.e., even if the order by the tribunal for an earlier year was before him. The principle of res judicata has no application as far as the proceedings under the Act are concerned, with each year being an independent unit of assessment. That is, he is not bound to adopt the net profit rate as found acceptable and reasonable for another year, and duty bound to apply his mind to the facts for the relevant year. Further, by the same analogy, he is also, and equally, not bound to adopt the profit rate found reasonable by the tribunal in the case of other assessees, and which we find to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear in an independent manner. A comparison with the preceding year/s (A.Y. 2005-06) would thus necessarily ensue, implying uniformity and comparability of facts, where again a net profit rate of 7% was applied. The same, however, stands merged with the order by the tribunal, which restricted the said rate to 5%, and which, therefore, has to be considered as the confirmedrate for that year. This is as the said order by the tribunal has attained finality; there being nothing on record to suggest its being contested by the Revenue, i.e., on the legal issue as is being raised before us, and towardwhich a specific query was also raised by the Bench during hearing. Further, between the two, the order by the tribunal in the assessee's own case has....