TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 1.4.1986 to 20.9.1996. The question, which the learned Advocate for the appellant has pressed before us, is Question No.(iii) which reads as follows:- " (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in having upheld the treatment of cash deposits of Rs. 2,01,000/- in Canara Bank during assessment year 1987-88 as unexplained cash credit by invoking provisions of section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961, inasmuch as the source of such deposits were duly considered in the final account of the assessee?" Learned Advocate for the appellant has filed a written notes of submission. He relied on paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 at page-2 of his written notes, which read as follows: "In this case the block asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e: Gee Vce Enterprises -Vs- Addl. CIT (New Dehli) reported in (1975) 99 ITR 375. Lack of necessary enquiry makes an assessment order erroneous as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Re: Malabar Industrial Corporation (2000) 243 ITK 83 (SC)". The learned Tribunal in paragraph-16 of the impugned judgment, held as follows:- "16. The question before us is, as to whether the action of the A.O. to treat the deposits aggregating to a sum of Rs. 2,01,000/- as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources is justified. In order to consider as to whether the addition of Rs. 2,01,000/- is in accordance with the provisions relating to the block assessment, it would be necessary to consider as to which addition is based on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned judgment. From the written submission filed by the learned Advocate for the assessee before us, which we have quoted above, it does not appear that even before us there is any attempt to offer any explanation with regard to the two deposits made with Canara Bank. When this was pointed to the learned Advocate for the assessee, he drew our attention to the grounds of appeal filed before the learned Tribunal. He relied upon Ground No.1, which reads as follows: " That the Ld.A.O. erred in having treated the cash deposit in Canara Bank amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1000/- on 7.4.86 and 21.187 respectively as unexplained cash credit while the source of such deposit was duly considered in the final accounts of the appellant." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessing officer was stressed in the case of Malabar Industrial Corporation in a proceeding under Section 263 of the I. T. Act. For exercise of power under Section 263 two jurisdictional facts are required to be shown:- (a) That the order is erroneous. (b) That the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. An answer to the question whether the order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue is dependent upon proper and requisite investigation by the assessing officer. The assessing officer cannot accept a claim made by the assessee without satisfying himself about the correctness thereof. For arriving at such satisfaction, he is empowered to make the necessary investigation. In the case before us, the assessee....