TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rat [Ld.CIT(A)], dated 15.03.2018, which in turn arise out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], dated 22.11.2017. 2. First, we shall take Revenue`s appeal in ITA No.361/SRT/2018, for assessment year 2010-11. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: "1. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 98,22,26,712/- u/s 69 of the IT Act without appreciating the facts that the assessee failed to provide details of credit entries in his bank accounts? 2. On the facts and circumstances of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hus, on perusal of the records, it was found by assessing officer that there are deposits/credits of Rs. 98,22,26,712/- in the bank accounts of the assessee maintained with the Union Bank of India, bearing account No. 311001010055354, 31100101005355, 311001010055356 & 31100101005357 through cash/cheque/transfer during FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11. However, assessee has neither furnished any details/explanation/supporting evidences in respect of source of the above mentioned deposits in his bank accounts nor filed his return of income for the year under consideration and thus source of above mentioned deposits in the bank accounts of assessee remains unexplained. Therefore, above mentioned amount of Rs. 98,22,26,712/- was treated by ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed cross objections before us. 6. Learned Departmental Representative (ld DR) for the Revenue submitted that in the assessee's case, it was found from the enquiry report of the Investigation Wing that assessee did not produce any proof regarding credit entries or turnover during the course of enquiry/verification proceedings. Further, assessee did not produce any details/evidence in respect of source of credit entries in his bank account or turnover or any other called for details during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, assessee did not furnish any proof regarding turnover and cheque discounting business during the course of appellate proceedings. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that every assessment year is a differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o pointed out that assessee has been using these bank accounts for the cheque discounting business and the assessing officer in the A.Y. 2009-10 allowed the claim of the assessee treating cheque discounting business, this way, ld Counsel defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that in assessee`s case an enquiry report was received from the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-III, Surat regarding huge credits in the bank account of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the same issue, involving identical facts unless and until a cogent case is made out by the Assessing Officer on the basis of change in facts. For that we rely on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RadhasoamiSatsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC), wherein it was held as follows: "We are aware of the fact that, strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate....