TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the asst. yr. 2009-10, may very kindly be admitted which IB being filed late effectively by 6 days probably, as against the 60 days time-limit prescribed which expired on 13th Nov., 2012, as the probable date of service of the order under appeal is 14th Sept., 2012, which is yet to be verified from the record of CIT(A). The appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the same in the prescribed time because of the under-mentioned reason. The local counsel Shri T.C. Tayal, advocate, had forgotten the exact date of service and remained under a mistaken belief bonajidely of the service date as was 24th Nov., 2012, instead of 14th Sept., 2012. His affidavit is also enclosed for the purpose in support of the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case was selected for scrutiny on the ground that the amount exceeding ₹ 10 lakhs was deposited in the assessee's bank account. The assessment was completed under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on 16th Sept., 2011 at the income declared by the assessee in the return of income. Thereafter, the learned CIT exercised his powers under s. 263 of the Act and initiated proceedings on the following ground:- The AO has completed the assessment in routine manner without making proper enquiry and investigation regarding the deposit of ₹ 15,92,500 made by the assessee in the bank account and failed to examine the source of deposit properly. 7. The submissions of the assessee before the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Pritam Kaur and Smt. Gurdeep Kaur sold their land for ₹ 6,00,000 (six lakhs) (three lakhs each). Smt. Gurdeep Kaur given this money ₹ 3,00,000 to her mother. Copy of sale deed of 20 Bighas enclosed herewith. Smt. Pritam Kaur made FDR of ₹ 15,00,000 (fifteen lakhs) on 7th Sept., 2007 (copy of account is enclosed) with the total amount of land sold and ₹ 9,00,000 from her savings from agricultural income. That family of Bikar Singh and Pritam Kaur are only agriculturists. That assessee Bikar Singh and his family have 180 Bighas agricultural land at Chock 10-11H, The Sri Karanpur. 7.1 The learned CIT, after considering the submissions of the assessee, observed that the reply filed was general ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on the following case laws:- (i) Order of Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Sunil Bhandari vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No. 122/Jd/2011 (reported at (2013) 154 TTJ (Jd) 751: (2013) 87 DTK (Jd)(Trib) 1690; (ii) Ram Dayal Kalla vs. ITO (2004) 90 TTJ (Jd) 450; (iii) Metallizing Equipment vs. Jt. CIT (2005) 96 TTJ (Jd) 827; (iv) Hycron India vs. Asstt. CIT (2004) 82 TTJ (Jd) 450; (v) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 266 : (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 9. In his rival submissions the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of learned CIT. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case it is noticed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his power under s. 263, is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the AO. (vii) The AO exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrives at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. (viii) The CIT, before exercising his jurisdiction under s. 263, must have material on record to arrive at a satisfaction. (ix) If the AO has made enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings on the relevant issues and the assessee has given detailed explanation by a letter in writing and the AO allowed the claim on being satisfied with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposit in the bank account. He again asked the assessee to furnish the copy of bank account No. 85940 for further verification and ultimately the AO noted in the order sheet entry dt. 16th Sept., 2011 that the assessee produced the information and the case was discussed with him. From the abovesaid order sheet entries, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 14 and 15 of the assessee' compilation, it is clear that the AO made the proper enquiry relating to the deposit of ₹ 15,59,000 and only after being satisfied, the assessment was framed under s. 143(3) of the Act. 10.2 On a similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (supra) has held as under:- The phrase 'prejudicial to the inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
