9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing grounds: "1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 even when: 1.1 The original assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) did not satisfy the twin conditions of being an 'erroneous order' and 'prejudicial to the interest of revenue'. 1.2 The Worthy Pr, CIT has erred in setting aside the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and in directing the AO to make assessment afresh on the ground 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 mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mahindra Bank. The assessee had not filed her return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessment in the case of the assessee was reopened by the AO invoking the provisions of section 147 read with section 148 of the Act, to verify the source of cash deposited into the bank account of the assessee. The assessee explained before the AO that the bank account in question was a joint account of the assessee with her husband, namely Shri Surender Singh Taxak. The assessee explained that the assessee did not deposit any amount in that bank account, rather the amount of Rs. 19 lacs was deposited by the second joint account holder i.e. her husband Shri Surender Singh Taxak. The assessee further explained the source of cash with her h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. 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 Rs. 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 "conclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of cash deposits Rs. 19,02,000/-. Moreover, in the agreement to sell, the property was mentioned as a plot but it was actually a duplex residential house. There was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the AO. In view of the facts discussed above it is clear that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The A.O. should conduct detailed enquiries on the above issues. Inquiries should be conducted to examine the ownership of property. The agreement to sale should also be examined. Documentary evidences regarding purchase and sale of property should also be called for and examined. The fact that it was a plot or house which was sold should be examined. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the genuineness of the transaction. In our view, 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. However, the AO continued with the proceedings, wherein the assessee duly explained the source of cash deposited even by the second account holder. The AO to further verify the genuineness of the transaction, recorded the statement of Shri Sunil Khasa, the proposed purchaser, who categorically admitted that he had paid the amount of Rs. 19 lacs to the second account holder. However, the Ld. Pr. CIT proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xecuted agreement to sell of 20% share of the house. The father-in-law of the assessee expired after some time and thereafter the house in fact, was transferred in the name of the husband of the assessee on 01.04.2015. The above facts show that the AO had duly made appropriate inquiries and even recorded the statement of Shri Sunil Khasa, who admitted that he had given Rs. 19 lacs to the husband of the assessee. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the Ld. Pr. CIT wrongly exercised his revision jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. The impugned order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act being bad in law, is not sustainable and the same is accordingly, quashed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
