- (1.) Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 10.9.2014, Annexure P.3 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B', Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in ITA No.173/CHD/2014, for the assessment year 2007-08, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "A. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal, is justified in confirming the orders of authorities below in treating the entire bank deposits as unexplained deposits by clearly deviating from the principles of judicial consistency which is trite law in view of judgment in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1992 AIR(SC) 377 B. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in not considering the additional evidences during the course of regular hearing and also in Misc. application which is against the trite law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tek Ram (dead) through Lrs vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2013 357 ITR 133 C. Whether the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse and deserves to be set aside -
(3.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-assessee is an individual based at Ludhiana. She is engaged in the business of commodity exchange, resale of ladies suits and rental. She is also earning from interest. She filed return of Income for the assessment year 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 declaring income of Rs. 1,17,351/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer in response to the notice issued to her. She was asked to explain the source of deposits in bank accounts and as to why these investments in saving bank account should not be treated as unexplained income under sections 69/69B of the Act. The assessee filed reply dated 23.11.2009 pleading that she was carrying out work as broker for feed ingredients also and the amounts had been received from the poultry farmers on various dates and the same had been deposited in the bank accounts and paid through cheques to suppliers of feed ingredients against bills. The appellant had received brokerage of 1.5 to 2% only. The Assessing Officer presumed that the bank transactions were circulation of money and made addition of entire deposits of Rs. 16,78,961/-. Even LIC maturity deposits were not spared and they had been added as unexplained deposits. Against the assessment order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 16.12.2013, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no evidence to support the claims and res judicata was not applicable in income tax matters. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee also filed certain documents during appellate proceedings in support of her case. According to the appellant, she was not given proper advice by her counsel and therefore, the entire record was not filed before the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that since the Assessing Officer had adopted peak theory for the assessment year 2006-07, the same was to be followed in the year under appeal also. However, for the earlier year and even for the year under appeal, the documents like affidavits of farmers and supporting documents of financial transactions were submitted before the Assessing Officer during penalty proceedings and therefore penalty had been dropped for both the years. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.9.2014, Annexure A.3 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant following the case of Sudhir Kumar Sharma HUF vs. CIT. The assessee filed application dated 8.12.2014 for correction of factual errors. Vide order dated 19.3.2015, Annexure A.4, the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant-assessee.;