As per the direction of the Court the amounts collected as sales consideration and deposited in the designated account and to make FDs out of same. AO  held that FDs with Indian Bank made by Ferani did not belong to assessee and as such interest on FDs made did not constitute its income. CIT issued the show cause notice to revise the order. On receipt of the show cause notice under section 263, the assessee filed an application under Right to Information Act 2005 with Indian Bank and in response to the application, the Bank admitted that the account was opened by an existing account holder and admittedly appeared as ‘Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd-Account NN Wadia Share’ and therefore there was no need for introducer. The assessee maintained that the Estate of EFD never maintained any Bank account with Indian Bank, whereas Ferani always maintains it’s account with Indian Bank. This fact clearly proves that account belonged to Ferani which was an existing account holder of Indian Bank. The Bank also admitted that in order to comply with KYC requirements, account holder had provided PAN Cards & Ration Cards of ‘GLR’ through ‘SNA’, who have no connection with Estate of EFD. The Bank informed that as per its record account was authorized to be operated by ‘GLR’, ‘SGR’ or ‘DSR’. None of the said 3 persons were related with the affairs of estate of EFD. The bank further admitted that it never had in its possession any account opening or account operating documents which bore signature of ‘NNW’ even though the cause title of the a/c contained his name. As regards making of the fixed deposits the Bank admitted that the FDs were created or made on the basis of instruction letters issued by Ferani addressed to the Bandra Branch and not because of any instruction issued by the Administrator of EFD and TDS from interest was reported against PAN AAEPD 8394A belonging to Estate of EFD as per the instruction given by Ferani and based on such instructions only the TDS was reported by the bank in the name of estate of EFD. The AO had conducted enquiry before completion of assessment. The Assessing Officer had issued notices under section 133(6) to Ferani as well as Indian Bank and obtained required information. The Assessing Officer had also examined the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 19-7-2012 and interpreted in her own way the directions. The directions of the Bombay High Court were of course open for interpretation in more than one manner. Accordingly, by interpreting the directions in her own way the Assessing Officer had come to conclusion that the amounts collected by Ferani from Flat purchasers constituted assessee’s income liable to be taxed in assessment year 2013-14.  On facts the CIT sought to interpret the directions of the Bombay High court in a manner different from the Assessing Officer and has directed the Assessing Officer to assess even the interest on FD as assessee’s income.  Quashing the order of the CIT the Tribunal held that the order passed by the AO is not erroneous. Tribunal also held that if an amount is not chargeable to tax just because the payer has deducted the tax at source, the said amount cannot be brought to tax.  (AY. 2013-14)