9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter due application of mind and verification of source of cash deposits of Rs. 31,50,000/- on different dates in the bank account maintained with SBOP, Pilibanga, Rajasthan to his satisfaction in accordance with law, therefore, the finding of the learned C1T that the assessment has been framed without making adequate enquiries is against law. 3. That the learned CIT has erred in holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous on account of making inadequate enquiry and lack of verification at the time of making assessment in respect of cash deposit of Rs. 31,50,000/- in the bank account with State Bank of Patiala, Pilibanga by holding that the assessment has been framed without making inquires and, if made, the same are inadequate as not made in a specific manner without appreciating that as per explanation filed and material placed on record during the proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, the assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer after making inquires as required under law and to his satisfaction. 4. That the appellant craves to add or amend the grounds of appeal." 3. Original assessment in the case of the assessee was framed by the AO vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do so. Thus no effective inquiry has been made by the AO to examine the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 31,50,000/- and other such entries in the account of the assessee. The absence of enquiry in circumstances that required inquiry has resulted in assessment being based on insufficient materials making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue." In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that the AO in the course of the assessment proceedings had duly verified the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 31.50 lacs in the assessee's bank account with State Bank of Patiala, Pilibanga (Raj.). Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the assessee, that during the course of the assessment proceedings, on be queried as regards the cash deposits in his bank account, it was submitted by him that the same was sourced out of the sale proceeds of agricultural land that was jointly owned by him along with his three brothers, and was sold by them vide an 'agreement to sell', dated 22.06.2010 to S/sh. Makhan Singh and Rajvir Singh, Ss/o. Shri. Mehr Singh, Rr/o Masruwala Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj.) for a consideration of Rs. 1.21 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1882, could only be effected vide a registered instrument, therefore, the claim of the assessee of having received a consideration of Rs. 1.21 crores on the sale of the land in question vide an "agreement to sell", dated 22.06.2010 had no evidentiary value. Also, the Pr. CIT was not inspired by the claim of the assessee that the "agreement to sell" in question was registered with a Notary Public. It was observed by the Pr. CIT that as a Notary Public had no power to register any document, therefore, the enquiries that were made by the AO with him as regards the 'agreement' that was claimed to be registered with him were of no relevance. Backed by his aforesaid deliberations, the Pr. CIT holding a conviction that the AO had failed to carry out any effective enquiries as regards the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 31.50 lacs in the assessee's Saving Bank account with State Bank of Patiala, Plilibanga (Raj.), therein held the order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 09.10.2013 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT set-aside the assessment order with a direction to the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red deeds were however executed on 23.12.2010. For the sake of clarity, the 'Office Note' of the AO forming part of the assessment order is reproduced as under (Page 68-69 of 'APB') : "Office Note : 1. The case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS as the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 31,50,000/- into his saving bank account with the SBOP, Pilibanga (Raj.). The copy of the said bank account was obtained and verified. It has been noticed that a sum of Rs. 6.50 lac has been deposited on 22.06.2010 and Rs. 25 lac has been deposited on 31.12.2010. On being required to explain the source of such cash deposit, the assessee contended that he had been owning agri. land with his three brothers at Pilibanga (Raj.) and they entered into an agreement on 22.06.2010 to sell such land to S/Shri Makhan Singh and Rajbir Singh, sons of Shri Mehar Singh, R/o Masruwala (presently 22, STG Dhani, Pilibanga), Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj) on 22.06.2010 for Rs. 1.21 Crore vide registered agreement dated 22.06.2010 according to which a sum of Rs. 20 lac was given as advance, the balance was to be given at the time of registration by 10.01.2011. However, the registry was got executed on 23.12.2010 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the 'agreement to sell' on 22.06.2010 for a consideration of Rs. 1.21 croes, had also directed for sharing of the said information with the Sub- Registrar, Pilibanga, (Raj.) a/w a copy of same to the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh for further necessary action in respect of evasion of stamp duty, if any. 7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view, that it can safely be concluded that the AO while framing the assessment had called for the requisite information and verified the source of the cash deposited by the assessee in his Saving Bank account with State Bank of Patiala, Branch: Pilibanga (Raj.). In our considered view, the AO after necessary deliberations had accepted the assessee's explanation as regards the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 31.50 lacs (supra) in his bank account, i.e., out of the sale consideration of Rs. 1.21 crore (supra) that was received on sale of the agricultural land that was jointly owned by him a/w his three brothers. In so far the view taken by the Pr. CIT, that as an amount of only Rs. 16.71 lacs (supra) was only available with the assessee, as against the cash deposit of Rs. 31.50 lacs (supra), we are afraid is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing jurisdiction over the purchasers of the land, viz. S/shri Makhan Singh and Rajbir Singh, but had also passed over the said information to the Sub-Registrar, Pilibanga (Raj.) and the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh for necessary action in respect of evasion of stamp duty, if any, on the ground, that the registered sale deeds as regards the transaction of sale of land in question were executed at a value far below the actual consideration that had exchanged hands as per the 'agreement to sell', dated 22.06.2010. In our considered view, as the AO after necessary deliberations had taken a possible and a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT was clearly divested from exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view, that where an AO after making proper and detailed inquiry had on the basis of a possible view accepted the assessee's claim, then, the CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot direct the AO to carry out a fuller enquiry, is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT, Central-III v. Nirav Modi [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bombay). In the aforesaid case, the AO after making a proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
