AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1076
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to tax. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed the return of income on 20.02.2014 disclosing returned income of Rs. 18,18,938/- for A.Y. 2008-09, Rs. 16,92,579/- for A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs. 84,443/- for A.Y. 2010-11 respectively. Against the said returns of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik ('the Assessing Officer') vide order dated 09.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at total income of Rs. 25,68,938/-, Rs. 23,12,492/- and Rs. 4,78,043/- for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. 4. Subsequently, on verification of the assessment records, ld. PCIT had noticed that the appellant had deposited huge cash in the bank accounts. The assessee had itself shown unsecured loans which remain unverified by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The ld. PCIT also found that the appellant had sold shop at Gurudev Tower, Canada Corner of Rs. 1,59,97,500/- for A.Y. 2008-09 and Rs. 45,00,000/- for A.Y. 2009-10. The ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the said shops were not forming part of the stock-in-trade which means the gains arising on sale of such shops shoul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... course of hearing of the appeal and the same is dismissed as not pressed. 7. Ground of appeal no.2 and 3 challenges the order of revision passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 on the ground that the assessment order cannot be termed as "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" as the issues sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT were examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer had examined the source of cash deposits during the course of assessment proceedings. The ld. PCIT has reproduced the images of cash flow statements furnished to the Assessing Officer during the course assessment proceedings for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The ld. Counsel for the assessee taking us through the cash flow statements submitted that the cash withdrawals are mistaken to be cash deposits. As regards to allegation of the ld. PCIT that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09, an amount of Rs. 40,08,175/- was deposited in the bank accounts, the ld. Counsel for the assessee taking us through the cash flow statements' images which is reproduced by the ld. PCIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred the power of revision on the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act in case the assessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In order to invoke the power of revision, the above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an "erroneous". Therefore, the issue i.e. required to be examined by us is whether or not the Assessing Officer carried out any enquiry and verification on the issue of source of cash deposits as well as genuineness of the loans creditors and the assessment of gains arising on sale of shops should be under the head of "business" or "capital gains". 12. Now, we shall deal issue regarding the source of cash deposits. The fact that the Assessing Officer had examined the source....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lular Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 301 ITR 407 has expressly negatived on identical contention on behalf of the Revenue. The Court held that once all the material was placed before the Assessing Officer and he chose not to refer to the deduction/claim which was being allowed in the assessment order, it could not be contended that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while passing the assessment order. Moreover in this case, it is evident from the letter dated 6th August, 2007, addressed by the Assessing Officer to the Petitioner containing the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice also record the fact that during the regular assessment proceedings, the Petitioner has been asked to furnish details in support of the claim for exemption under Section 80-IA/IB of the Act. The letter further records that the details sought for were furnished and it is now observed that there has been a disproportionate distribution of expenses between various units belonging to the Petitioner for claiming deduction under Section 80- IA/IB of the Act. This is a further indication of the fact that the Assessing Officer had during the regular assessment proceedings for Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) :- "9. .......... Once the Assessing Officer is satisfied with the explanation offered on inquiry, it is not open to the CIT in exercise of his revsional powers direct that further enquiry has to be done. At the very highest, the case of the Revenue is that this is a case of inadequate inquiry and not of "no enquiry." It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act can be exercised by the CIT only when it is a case of lack of enquiry and not one of inadequate enquiry. This view has been taken by this Court in the matter of CIT v. Shreepati Holdings & Finance (P.) Ltd. [ITA 1879 of 2013 dated 5th October, 2013], by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537/194 Taxman 57 and in D.G. Housing Projects (supra). In fact the Delhi High Court in D.G. Housing Projects (supra) while so holding placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Gabriel (India) Ltd. (supra). It is very important to note that the CIT in his order under Section 263 of the Act has recorded the fact that there has been no adequate inquiry. Thus, this is not a case of no inquiry, warranting ....