Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 750 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - unexplained cash deposit entries in bank account - reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT:- As provision of banking book’s evidence 1891, it is clear that once certified documents were given by the Branch Manager/Chief Manager of the Bank while discharging its duty in pursuance to the notice issued by any authority, then the said information is admissible in the eyes of law and no further corroboration is required. In our considered opinion, AO had made adequate inquiry u/s 148 before passing the said order. We have gone through the order passed by the PCIT and we found that the PCIT had failed to bring one record the material/evidence which shows that the assessee had deposited the cash in her bank account. From the perusal of the various letters written by the bank to the revenue, it is abundantly clear that no cash was deposited by the assessee in her bank account. These documents and other correspondence clearly shows that the AO had made sufficient enquiry to find out whether the cash was deposited in the bank account of the assessee or not. After due satisfaction, that no cash was deposited in assessee’s bank account, the assessment order was passed without making any addition. The bank was not in possession of any document like cash book, vouchers, signed vouchers of debit and credit and journal for the dates i.e. from 30.06.2010 to 10.07.2010. In the absence of these documents it cannot be assumed that any cash was deposited by the assessee either in her own account or in the account of Saradjyot singh or the amount was debited and credited in her account. In our view the whole order of the PCIT is premised on conjectures and surmises without any cogent reliable evidence. The bank had written various letters confirming that no cash was deposited in the account of the assessee at any point of time relevant to issue in hand. Therefore the invocation of power u/s 263, was without any basis. The observation on the PCIT that the documents furnished by the Bank in response to the notice of AO were not required to be corroborated with the statement of the Chief Manager for the reason that the documents issued under the Bankers Book Evidence Act 1891 are admissible in law - whole case of reopening was hinges on, the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee, the above said fact was denied by the bank in the documents submitted to the assessing officer in response to the notice issued by the assessing officer to the bank. Pr. CIT cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold, on the one hand, the Pr. CIT is holding that order of AO was erroneous as documents issued by the Bank were required to be corroborated Chief Manager and on the other hand Himself is not making enquiry/ examining the officials of the Bank to ascertain the true facts by denying the summoning of the officials of the Bank on the request of the assessee. In our considered opinion the Principle CIT had failed to bring on record any piece of evidence or documents which shows that the cash was deposited in the account of the assessee on the date mentioned in the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Once the certified copy of the cash book, bank account, vouchers and other documents were produced before the AO and PCIT, which clearly shows that no cash was deposited in the Bank account than, in our view, the finding recorded by the Pr. CIT, was not correct as the same was not borne out of the record. PCIT had failed to establish the fulfillment of twin conditions as mentioned herein above before invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. Pr. CIT has failed to bring on record how the order passed by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and further how it was erroneous. Note sheet of the assessment proceeding of AO clearly shows enough evidence of making the inquiries from the assessee as well as from the Bank and examination of the other relevant documents.The order passed by the Assessing Officer though was short, however elobrate enquiries were made by him before writing the order and dropping the proceedings under section 148, as sufficient material was brought on record , which shows that no cash was deposited in the Bank account - AO had examined complete record of the Bank, the cash book, the Bank statement of the assessee as well as that of Sh. Saradjot Singh and thereafter AO had chosen not to make any addition on account of above said amount. In the light of the above and respectively following the decision in the Matter of C.I.T. Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we are of the opinion that the proceeding u/s 263 of the Act at the level of Pr. CIT were not called for and accordingly the action initiated u/s 263 was without any merit and accordingly we quash the same.Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|