TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same was not subject matter of notice u/s. 263. The action of the Ld. CIT-I, Jodhpur is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals P. Ltd. reported in 317 ITR 249 following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. (2006) 7 (SC) 592. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-I, Jodhpur erred in setting aside the assessment order passed by the ld. A.O u/s. 143(3) for:- a) Verification of source of deposits of Rs. 50,70,486/- including cash deposits appearing in the bank statement maintained with State Bank of India, account no. 661010110000880 which was explained to the A.O. during the assessment proceedings. b) Source of opening cash balance of Rs. 9,85,000/- claimed in the assessment year under consideration. c) Applications of provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act, for the above, if any loan was taken by the assessee. d) Application of provision of section 2(22)(e) in respect of loans and advances taken by the assessee from any private limited company in whose account book profits as on 1st April of the F.Y. is availa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Ld. CIT also pointed out that in the questionnaire dated 09/06/2011, the Assessing Officer asked 36 questions. According to him the questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer was without application of mind as most of the questions were related to concern carrying on business/ manufacturing activity. He also pointed out that the assessee in her submissions to the Assessing Officer had mentioned as under:- (a) She was not involved in any kind of business activity during the F.Y. 2008-09. (b) She was only director in M/s. Saraswati Art Palace International Ltd. (c) She is having a saving bank account with Bank of India vide account no. 661010110000880. (d) She confirms that no construction activity has been carried out during the F.Y. 2008-09 (e) No books of accounts have been maintained by her." 4. The Ld. CIT pointed out that the assessee had deposited aggregated amount of Rs. 50,70,486/- in the saving bank account, out of which, a sum of Rs. 7,39,000/- was by cash and no enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer for source of the total deposits appearing in the bank account. He was of the view that the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act was in the nature ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loan facility, please furnish documents relating to taking of loan facility from the bank. 7). Further on 16th March, 2009 Rs. 2,25,000 is deposited in your account by transfer and Rs. 5,12,000 on 17th March by transfer CD 694, please state where from you got this fund and whether any confirmation letter in respect of these credits were filed. 8). It is further noticed that 2 lakhs on 19th March, 2009 and another entries of 2 lakhs on the same date has been credited by way of transfer from CD 694. Please state whether have you filed confirmation letter in respect of these transaction, if yes, by which letter of yours the confirmatory letter and source of credits appearing were filed before the Assessing Officer. 9). There is on one payment by way of cheque on 23rd March, 2009 by 5 lakhs to Amit construction, please state what asset you have purchased from Amit construction as in your letter submitted before the Assessing Officer, you have mentioned at para no. 7 that no construction activity has been carried out during the previous year 2008-09. 10). The case for the above matter is posted on 28th October, 2013." 6. The Ld. CIT pointed out that the authorized representative of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Reliance was also placed on the following case laws:- 1. Bikar Singh Vs. CIT [(2013) 36 CCH 494 (Jodh-Trib.)] 2. Jeewanram Choudhary Vs. CIT [(2013) 35 CCH 490 (Jodh-Trib.)] 3. Basant Vs. CIT [(2012) 66 DTR 275] 4. Pawan Kumar Vs. Assessing Officer [(2007) 106 TTJ (Jd) 494] It was further submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, Ld. CIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 8. In his rival submissions, learned D.R. strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that the Assessing Officer did not make proper enquiries relating to the deposits in the bank account and the opening cash balance shown by the assessee in the cash flow statement and also the application of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, Ld. CIT rightly held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Reliance was placed on the following case laws:- 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [243 ITR 83] (S.C.) 2. Gee Vee Enterpri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h are placed at page Nos. 14 to 27 of the assessee's paper book). Those replies also contained the copies of bank statement showing source of cash deposits in the bank account detail of expenditure and confirmation of account. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order without making enquiries. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer had taken plausible view after making necessary enquiries. Therefore, a mere disagreement or dissatisfaction of the Ld. CIT over the manner of assessment cannot be a basis for revision of the order u/s. 263 of the Act. 10. On a similar issue, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on a similar issue in the case of CIT Vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 166 (supra) has held as under:- "The prerequisite to the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under s. 263 by the CIT is that the order of the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Two conditions are to be satisfied, namely, (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) the error committed by the AO in the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both these conditions are to be sati....