2025 (6) TMI 1753

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,13,24,622/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year. As per information available the assessee has made deposit against vehicle loans of Rs. 9,04,000/- in Kahnpur Pathar Multistate Co-op. Credit Society. Similarly, as per 26AS data, there are total credits of Rs. 1,04,20,622/- in his bank account during the financial year 2014-15. Since the assessee has not filed his return of income, the source of such deposits remained unexplained. Hence, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en Counsel who never informed the assessee. Referring to the order of the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15, copy of which is placed at pages 1 to 6 of the paper book, he submitted that the Assessing Officer during the assessment year 2014-15 in the ex-parte order passed by him u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act has estimated such income at 6.34%. However, for the impugned assessment year the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire deposits as income of the assessee which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC which is not justified. He accordingly submitted that the Assessing Officer may be directed to adopt the same rate of profit that has been estimated for assessment year 2014-15. 7. The Ld. DR on the other....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Counsel for which all these unfortunate events happened. It is also his submission that since the Assessing Officer in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2014-15 has adopted the profit rate at 6.34% under identical circumstances, therefore, for this year also the same rate should have been adopted. It is the settled legal proposition that the principle of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings as every year is separate and distinct. Merely because the Assessing Officer has adopted the profit rate at 6.34% in the preceding year, the assessee cannot claim that the same rate of profit should be adopted for the huge cash deposits made in the bank account, the nature and source of which remained unexplained. However, co....