Surinder Kaur (Ms.) v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 531 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Deposit of cash by husband of assessee-sale of plot belonging to father and amount deposited in assessee’s account-AO raising queries and after all verification accepting return of the assessee-Revision is bad in law. [S. 143(3)]

Held, that in the assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to furnish copies of bank accounts as well as details of cash deposits in the savings bank account with cogent and corroborative documentary evidence and the details of source of cash deposits for the relevant period. The Assessing Officer had gone through the details submitted, agreement to sell as well as sale deed and also of the affidavit of the assessee’s husband, wherein, it had been deposed that since he had sold the plot originally belonging to his late father, he had deposited the amount in the bank account of his wife (i. e., the assessee) according to the wishes of his father. The entire documents furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as in response to the show-cause notice issued by the Principal Commissioner indicated that the claim of the assessee regarding the source of bank deposits was correct. The query letter issued by the Assessing Officer indicated that the Assessing Officer had duly applied his mind to the issue before him and further the assessee had duly responded to the query raised by the Assessing Officer in this regard and only thereafter the Assessing Officer had accepted the return. Therefore, there was no lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer warranting invocation of revisionary proceedings by the Principal Commissioner.(AY.2013-14)