TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest from bank and other parties. For the said assessment year, the return of income was filed declaring an income of Rs. 2,44,780/-. An information was received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department vide letter 15.3.2017, who in turn had received information from the Enforcement Directorate that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 8,00,000/- in her bank account maintained with Axis Bank, Jagraon and another Rs. 5,40,000/- in her bank account with HDFC bank, thus, totaling to a deposit of Rs. 13,40,000/-. In view of this information, notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was issued and in response to the said notice the assessee stated that the return originally filed may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 2.1. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs. 13,40,000/- and in response, the assessee stated before the Assessing officer (AO) that deposit was from the closing balance of cash-in hand in the immediately preceding assessment year amounting to Rs. 12,61,473/- and was also partly out of ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tained with HDFC Bank, Jagraon and acting on the information received from the Investigation Wing vide letter 15.03.2017, the assessee's case was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response to the notice, the assessee submitted before the Assessing officer that the original return filed may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In this year also, the assessee was asked to explain the cash deposit in the bank account and the response of the assessee was that the amount was deposited from the brought forward cash balance of the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. year ending 31.03.2012 amounting to Rs. 12,58,949/-. However, the assessee could not produce any books of account or cash flow statement in support of her claim. As in assessment year 2011-12, this year also the re-assessment was completed by treating the cash deposit of Rs. 10,40,000/- as unexplained income u/s. 69 of the Act and tuition income of Rs. 2,03,600/- as unexplained income u/s. 69A of the Act. The re-assessment proceedings was completed at a total income of Rs. 12,43,600/-. 2.4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as well as tuition income. It was submitted that the availability of opening cash in hand had been duly justified by filing of balance sheet for the immediately preceding assessment year which had already been accepted by the Department and, therefore, there was no reason to not accept the same for the purpose of making cash deposit in assessment year 2011-12. It was also submitted that the observation of the Assessing officer that the assessee would not have kept huge cash balance at home was just a conjecture and surmise and had no basis. It was submitted that once the closing cash balance has been accepted by the Assessing officer in the immediately preceding assessment year, then casting a doubt on the same cash balance in the subsequent assessment year was totally incorrect. It was submitted that the Assessing officer has not brought any evidence on record to establish that the assessee had spent the amount of cash withdrawals somewhere else, and, therefore, in the absence of any adverse material against the assessee on record, the explanation of the assessee could not have been rejected. 3.2. With regard to the tuition income, it was submitted that the assessee is a quali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te assessment year and has to be decided on the facts of that particular year. While supporting the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. DR submitted that in both the years the tuition fee declared by the assessee was of meager amount, whereas, the cash deposits were of larger amounts and the assessee had not been able to explain the source of deposits satisfactorily. It was also submitted that the assessee did not maintain any record of students which would help in cross checking and verifying the claim of the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the assessee's appeal and that the present appeals of the assessee deserved to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. The facts in both the years under appeal are not in dispute. In both the years under consideration, the assessee has declared income from tuition fee in her return of income and in both the years there were cash deposits in the bank account being maintained by the assessee. The Assessing officer added the cash deposits to the income of the assessee u/s. 69 of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee could not explain the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee had earned tuition fee in preceding assessment years, as is evident from the copies of the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act read with section 147 of the Act for assessment year 2010-11. Not only this, the assessee's returned income was also accepted in assessment year 2012-13 also in order passed u/s. 143 read with section 147 of the Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the lower authorities had no reason to disbelieve the assessee's claim of having earned tuition income in this assessment year as well for the simple reason of rule of consistency. As has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court the case of M/s. Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT reported in 193 ITR 321 (SC), the conclusion reached in earlier years is binding on subsequent years and should be followed unless there is a material shift in the facts of the case. Therefore, we do not concur with the findings of the authorities below on the issue of not accepting the assessee's of having received income from tuition fee. Thus, in assessment year 2011-12, on merits, we hold that the lower authorities had no justifiable reason to make the impugned additions. Therefore, the assessee succeeds on g....