TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cond account holder i.e. her husband, namely Shri Surender Singh Taxak. When the assessee had explained that the account was a joint account and the amount was deposited by the second account holder, then in our view, the AO should have dropped the proceeding against the assessee and issued notice to the second account holder, i.e. the husband of the assessee - AO continued with the proceedings, wherein the assessee duly explained the source of cash deposited even by the second account holder. Whatever may be the shortcomings/discrepancies relating to the agreement to sell 20% portion of the house, that could have been taken into consideration in the assessment proceedings in the case of the second account holder i.e. the husband of the assessee. Once the assessee had explained that she has not deposited any amount in the joint account and further the second account holder had in clear term admitted that the amount was deposited by him, the assessee, in our view, was absolved of her liability to further explain about the transaction. However, the Ld. Pr. CIT proceeded on wrong footing that the aforesaid explanation relating to the agreement to sell 20% share in the house pert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that AO had not conducted worthwhile enquiries during the assessment proceeding even when the AO had conducted thorough enquiries and also most importantly the Pr. CIT failed to carry our any enquiry himself and also failed to demonstrate which most necessary enquiry the Ld. AO failed to carry out. 1.3 The Worthy Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that inadequate inquiry does not amount to lack of inquiry so as to assume valid jurisdiction u/s. 263. 1.4 The Worthy Pr, CIT issued show cause notice u/s. 263 on one issue and when assessee replied to that issue and the Worthy PCIT did not find any objection therein, he then passed the impugned order on an altogether new allegation which also did not exist and in any case do not give valid jurisdiction u/s. 263 to the respondent. 1.5 The Worthy Pr. CIT has conducted the impugned proceedings u/s. 263 in extreme haste and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 1.6 The impugned order u/s. 263 has not been served on the appellant on or before 31.03.2021 and hence is beyond the prescribed limitation period and therefore deserving to be quashed. 2. That the appellant craves leave for any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for sale of 20% share in the house, whereas as per the records submitted by the assessee, the house in question was transferred vide letter No. 874, dated 01.04.2015 in the name of the assessee. He observed that the assessee was not the owner of the above-said property at the time of execution of agreement to sell. He further observed that in the agreement to sell, the property was mentioned as a plot but actually it was a duplex house. He, therefore, observed that there was clearly lack of inquiries by the AO. He accordingly, held that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He, therefore, set aside the assessment order in question with the direction to the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. The relevant para of the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, for the sake of reference, is reproduced hereunder: The reply filed by the assessee has been examined but not acceptable because as per agreement to sell dated 14.02.2011 by which the assessee has claimed that during the year under consideration, he had received ₹ 19 Lakh from Sh. Sunil Khasa on 14.02.2011 for sale of his 20% share in plot No. 213. Noida the final date of conclusion of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per law. ...... 6. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Ld. Pr. CIT the assessee has come in appeal before us. We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the records. A perusal of the above reproduced relevant para of the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT reveals that the Ld. Pr. CIT had proceeded on the wrong footing that the assessee had deposited the amount of ₹ 19 lacs in the account and further that the assessee had entered into an agreement to sell for 20% share in the house with Shri Sunil Khasa, whereas, the case of the assessee from the very beginning has been that the amount of ₹ 19 lacs was not deposited by her in the joint bank account, rather the amount in question was deposited by the other/second account holder i.e. her husband, namely Shri Surender Singh Taxak. In our view, once the assessee had come with a clear stand that the account in question was a joint account and the amount was deposited by the other account holder and that other account holder, namely Shri Surender Singh Taxak had admitted before the AO in clear term that in fact, he had deposited the amount in question and not the assessee and further the source in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
