TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....she opened a Saving Bank account in the said bank and the transactions started w.e.f 6.9.2008. Shri Amit Kashyap was serving as Manager in the said bank. He was under pressure to meet out the targets of sale of pure gold coins given to his branch. During the aforesaid period, a NRI customer of the said branch Shri Tarlochan Singh who was maintaining a NRE account with this bank, on his visit to India withdrew an amount of Rs. 25 lacs in the month of September 2008 for purchase of some property which could not materialise. Tarlochan Singh could not redeposit the said amount in his NRE account as deposit of Indian rupees in the said account, was not permitted. He after being persuaded by the manager Shri Amit Kashyap agreed to invest for the purchase of pure gold coins from the bank. As the purchase of pure gold coins was not permitted in cash, the manager persuaded the petitioner to permit routing the said purchase transaction through her saving account and allow the cash belonging to Shri Tarlochan Singh to be deposited in her account and be routed for purchasing the pure gold coins for Shri Tarlochan Singh. The petitioner under the bonafide belief that there was nothing wrong in f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r vide order dated 5.12.2011, Annexure P.3 and the CIT while passing order dated 28.3.2013, Annexure P.6 under section 264 of the Act had completely ignored the same. Furthermore, the CIT had passed the order which is not a speaking one. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Smt.P.K.Noorjahan, (1999) 237 ITR 570 to submit that addition under section 69 of the Act is within the discretion of the Assessing officer as according to the words used in the said section, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to consider the facts and circumstances of the case before making an addition of Rs. 24,39,000/-. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 5. It would be expedient to refer to Section 264 of the Act which reads thus:- "264. Revision of other orders (1) In the case of any order other than an order to which section 263 applies passed by an authority subordinate to him, the Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which any such order has been passed and may make such inquiry or cause such i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation 1: An order by the Commissioner declining to interfere shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed not to be an order prejudicial to the assessee. Explanation 2: For the purposes of this section, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) shall be deemed to be an authority subordinate to the Commissioner." 6. A reading of the above show that the assessee can move Commissioner of Income Tax for revising the order passed by an authority within the period of one year from the date on which the order is communicated to him or when he comes to know of the order whichever is earlier. If due to sufficient cause the assessee cannot file revision within the prescribed period, the Commissioner may condone the delay and admit the application even after expiry of that period. 7. The Assessing Officer while making addition of Rs. 24,39,000/- vide order dated 5.12.2011, Annexure P.3 had noticed as under:- "To verify the facts, a letter was issued to the bank Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, Kapurthala on 13.9.2011. In response to this letter Shri Dinesh Sarna filed copies of two withdrawal vouchers filed in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Lal, H.No.59/4, Deol Nagar, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar on 25.11.2011 in which she was requested to intimate the date of joining and relieving from the said branch, total salary drawn during the said year and a copy of the appointment letter of the bank fixing the case for hearing on 30.11.2011 but no reply has been received so far. It is clear that assessee was not bank employee in the said year and wants to say nothing in this matter. From the above facts, it is clear that written submissions filed by her counsel on different dates are totally baseless and after thought stories when onus lies on the assessee to prove its genuineness and creditworthiness of the person from whom said amount was received but she has received but she has failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the amount so received by her. Her counsel's written submissions filed during assessment proceedings are not satisfactory as the submission that she was bank employee and received the cash in that capacity had itself been found to be untrue. So total cash deposits of Rs. 24,39,000/- in her saving account that has been used to purchase gold from the bank are unexplained, this....