TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Rs. 22,96,337/- accordingly, the source of cash deposits needs to be verified. Further, the assessee has acquired immovable property for a total consideration of Rs. 34,68,600/- jointly with his wife Smt. Vandana Gupta in Ghaziabad. The source of investment of 50% share of Smt. Vandana Gupta and the investment Rs. 11,00,000/- by the assessee during the financial year relevant to AY 2008-09 needs to be verified". 4. In response to the same the assessee made following submissions along with relevant documents:- 'With reference to your notice dated 15-01-2014 u/s 263 of the I.T. Act 1961 initiating proceedings for revision of the assessment order dt. 13-12- 2011 passed by the Income Tax officer, Ward 21-3 (3) (A.0) as erroneous so as to be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for the reasons stated therein, I seek your leave to explain point by point the factual and correct position below: OPENING BALANCE 1.1 The first ground on which the assessment is sought to be held erroneous is: (a) "Though the cash Balance oil 1.03.2008 was Rs. 20,268 Opening Cash Balance shown by you for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 is Rs. 12,72,745" (b) "That the total cash wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h balance of Rs. 1272745 and overlapping cash deposits because of transactions with different banks viz the ICICI Bank, Bank of India and Janakalyan Sahakari Bank due to cash withdrawn from one bank and deposited into another bank. The Cash Summary In personal books for the year 1-04-2008 to 31.03.2009 is given below :- Cash as on 1.4.2008 Add cash withdrawn from 1272745 Bank of India 500000 ICICI Bank 503460 Jankalyan Bank 15000 Sundries 16945 1035405 2308150 Less cash deposits Bank of India 1100000 ICICI Bank 1077125 Jankalyan Bank 120000 2297125 Closing balance 11025 3 The A.O. in his assessment order considered the opening balances, our explanations and accepted the same. The A.0 correctly observed: "Regarding Cash Deposit, it is stated that "it is the opening balance of the earlier years along with cash [Balance] which is redeposited in bank". Hence the A.0 has considered the information and there is no error in his considered opinion. 4 PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY 4.1 The Next second ground for the proposed revision is in respect of purchase of an "immovable property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....total consideration of Rs. 38,00,000/- with joint name of his wife Snit Vandana Gupta (PAN No ANJPG3909Q. The assessee has paid Rs. 11,00,000/- during the assessment year 2008-09 A's 9,32,500 during the assessment year 2009-10' 4.7 It is, therefore submitted that the A.O. while making assessment of MY income for A Y 2009-10 had sought, got and verified all the relevant books, documents, records and information and passed a wellconsidered order dated 13-12-2011 , hence it is respectfully submitted that there is no error or prejudice caused to the interest of the revenues and accordingly the revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 may kindly be dropped" . 5. The Ld CIT was not convinced with the explanations of the assessee. The Ld CIT took the view that the assessing officer has accepted the explanations with regard to the opening cash balance without verification. He also took the view that the assessee could not have redeposited the cash withdrawan from the banks. With regard to the investment made in the purchase of flat, the Ld CIT took the view that the AO did not examine the sources of the assessee's wife, even though she was assessed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....note) : "The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282." 7. We shall now analyse the facts prevailing in the instant case and apply the legal principles laid down in the above said case by Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. We notice that the assessing officer has taken up the case of the assessee for scrutiny up....