TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 27^th March, 2023 for the assessment years 2014-15. 2. Since the issue involved in these appeals and cross objections are common and arising from the identical facts and circumstances of two groups concerns' case, therefore, these two appeals and cross objections are heard together and disposed of by this composite order. 3. In I.T.A.No. 232/Ind/2023, the Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,47,62,168/- made by the AO on account of profit on on-money receipt without appreciating the facts of the case available on record. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment year 2014-15. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment by recording the reasons that the on-money receipt should have been computed on the entire sales declared by the assessee and consequently the profit on the on-money receipts ought to have been Rs. 5,54,55,780/- instead of the addition made in the assessment u/s 143(3) of Rs. 2,06,93,612/-. The AO has accordingly completed the re-assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 147 on 21^st December, 2019, at the total income of Rs. 12,18,73,254/- after making the addition of Rs. 3,47,62,168/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO in the reassessment order. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,612/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of profit on on-money on sale of flats/plots. There was a survey action u/s.133A of the Act on 06-11-2012 at the office premises of the assessee and certain documents were impounded. Soon thereafter there was a Search action u/s. 132 of the Act on 30.11.2012 and seized several documents. It was thereafter the assessee, its Associated Firm and its Partners approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission for various assessment years [in assessee's case relating to the Asst. Yrs. 2011-12 to 2013-14] and offered the receipt of on-money of 30% of its Total receipts as additional income and settled the cases. 6.1. It is further seen from records that during the assessment proceedings for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stion of res judicata, because each year's assessment is final only for that year and does not govern later years, because it determines only the tax for a particular period by following Privy Council case laws namely House of Lords in Society of Medical Officers of Health -Vs- Hope [valuation officer] and Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd -Vs Municipal Council of Broken Hill. 6.3. In the most celebrated case of Radhaswami Satang 193 ITR 321, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that each assessment is a separate unit. Decision in one year may not carry forward and held for a subsequent year. An issue which is significant only for a particular year once decided cannot be held res judicata for a subsequent year. The evidence of one asst. y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT(A) as the issue is now covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case. 7. In the Cross Objection No.8/Ind/2023, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the reassessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. (ii) The reassessment order is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 8. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee as well as Learned Departmen....