9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had formed a view that the amount received by the assessee as a gift from his relative was a genuine transaction. However, the CIT set-aside the order passed by the AO, with a direction to inquire into the capacity of the donors and therein decide about the genuineness of the gift transaction afresh. On appeal, it was, inter alia, observed by the Hon ble High Court, that where there are two possible views and the AO had taken one of the possible views, then no occasion to exercise powers of revision can arise. It was observed by the Hon ble High Court that the CIT could not have exercised his revisional jurisdiction for directing a fuller inquiry to find out if the view taken was erroneous, specifically when the view was arrived at by the AO after an inquiry. We are unable to persuade ourselves to find favor with the order passed by the Pr. CIT, Bathinda u/s 263 and thus set-aside the same and restore the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) - Decided in favour of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o add or amend the grounds of appeal. 3. Original assessment in the case of the assessee was framed by the AO vide his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 09.10.2013, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 2,62,320/-. 4. Observing, that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS for verifying the source of cash deposits of ₹ 31.50 lacs in the assessee s bank A/c, the Pr. CIT, being of the view that the AO while framing the assessment had failed to properly verify the source of the cash deposits in question, thus, issued a Show cause notice ( SCN , for short), dated 19/26.08.2015 to the assessee and called upon him to explain as to why the assessment framed by the AO vide his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 09.10.2013 may not be revised by him u/s 263 of the Act. For the sake of clarity the relevant extract of the SCN , dated 19/26.08.2015 is culled out as under : The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to examine the source of cash deposits made by the assessee in savings bank accounts. As per copy of bank account maintained with SBOP, Pilibanga (Raj.), the assessee had made cash deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sell , dated 22.06.2010 to S/sh. Makhan Singh and Rajvir Singh, Ss/o. Shri. Mehr Singh, Rr/o Masruwala Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj.) for a consideration of ₹ 1.21 crores, out of which a sum of ₹ 20 lacs was received as advance at the time of executing the agreement, while for the balance sale consideration was to be received at the time of the registration of the sale deeds. It was further stated by him that the aforesaid land was thereafter transferred vide registered sale deed, dated 30.12.2010. It was, thus, the claim of the assessee that the cash deposit of ₹ 31.50 lacs in his bank A/c that was made in two tranches, i.e ₹ 6.5 lac deposited on 22.06.2010, and ₹ 25 lac deposited on 31.12.2010, as verified by the A.O in the course of the assessment proceedings, was sourced out of, viz. (i) advance of ₹ 20 lacs that was received at the time of executing the agreement to sell , dated 22.06.2010; and (ii) out of the balance sale consideration received at the time of registration of the sale deeds. However, the Pr. CIT, observed, that the consideration that had exchanged hands between the parties, i.e, as per the registered sale deeds was ₹ 11.71 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 09.10.2013 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT set-aside the assessment order with a direction to the AO to decide the matter afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and examining all the relevant evidence. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has assailed the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, dated 26.11.2013 in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR in order to support his respective contentions. Admittedly, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS for verifying the cash deposits of ₹ 31.50 lacs (supra) that were made by him during the year under consideration in his Saving Bank account with SBOP, Pilibanga (Raj.). As is discernible from the records, we find that the AO had vide his Notice u/s 142(1), dated 10.07.2013, specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj) on 22.06.2010 for ₹ 1.21 Crore vide registered agreement dated 22.06.2010 according to which a sum of ₹ 20 lac was given as advance, the balance was to be given at the time of registration by 10.01.2011. However, the registry was got executed on 23.12.2010 as per the copies of registration deed in respect of assessee's share of land furnished by the assessee. Regarding arising of capital gains in respect of the transfer, the assessee contended that the land is situated outside the Municipal Limit, as has also been clearly mentioned in the Sale Deed by the Registrar. However, the assessee has also furnished a copy of the certificate of the Patwari, certifying that the land is not an urban land. In view of the copies of agreement and sale deeds, the source of cash deposits stand explained satisfactorily. However, Inspector to pass on information regarding purchase of the land by the above mentioned two brothers i.e. S/Shri Makhan Singh and Rajbir Singh, sons of Shri Mehar Singh, R/ o Masruwala to the Income Tax Officer, Hanumangarh and also endorse a copy of the information to the JCIT, Ganga Nagar in respect of investment of ₹ 1.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 1.21 crore (supra) that was received on sale of the agricultural land that was jointly owned by him a/w his three brothers. In so far the view taken by the Pr. CIT, that as an amount of only ₹ 16.71 lacs (supra) was only available with the assessee, as against the cash deposit of ₹ 31.50 lacs (supra), we are afraid is a view arrived at by him by discarding the claim of the assessee of having sold the agricultural land in question vide the agreement to sell , dated 22.06.2010 for a consideration of ₹ 1.21 crores. We are of the considered view, that as observed by the Pr. CIT, and rightly so, the transfer of an immovable property as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act can only be executed vide a registered deed. Also, we concur with him that registration of agreement to sell with a Notary Public can by no means substitute a document registered with the Registrar/Sub-Registrar who are appointed by the State Government. At the same time, we cannot remain oblivious of the fact, that an agreement to sell duly notarized would carry evidentiary value, at least qua the sale consideration that had exchanged hands between the parties, i.e, the purchaser a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the assessee s claim, then, the CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot direct the AO to carry out a fuller enquiry, is supported by the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT, Central-III v. Nirav Modi [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bombay). In the aforesaid case, the AO after making a proper and detailed inquiry had formed a view that the amount received by the assessee as a gift from his relative was a genuine transaction. However, the CIT set-aside the order passed by the AO, with a direction to inquire into the capacity of the donors and therein decide about the genuineness of the gift transaction afresh. On appeal, it was, inter alia, observed by the Hon ble High Court, that where there are two possible views and the AO had taken one of the possible views, then no occasion to exercise powers of revision can arise. It was observed by the Hon ble High Court that the CIT could not have exercised his revisional jurisdiction for directing a fuller inquiry to find out if the view taken was erroneous, specifically when the view was arrived at by the AO after an inquiry. We find that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble High Court ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
