2023 (8) TMI 1435 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Revision u/s 263 - case for selected for limited scrutiny - CIT made addition of income u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act for EPF - as argued since the assessment was a limited scrutiny assessment and the error noted by the PCIT was beyond the scope of limited scrutiny of the AO - HELD THAT - DR was unable to controvert both the factual contentions of the assessee that the assessment in the present case was a limited scrutiny assessment and the error noted by the PCIT in the assessment order was beyond the scope of limited scrutiny; nor was he able to controvert the proposition of law laid down by the various courts in this regard as pointed out by assessee before us that there cannot be any error in the assessment framed in limited scrutiny on issues which were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. In view of the above we are in complete agreement with assessee that the impugned order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 is not sustainable in law and it is therefore directed to be quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: The validity of notice issued under Section 263, jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner for invoking revisionary powers, and the sustainability of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Validity of Notice under Section 263:
The appeal challenged the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar, dated 30.03.2021, under Section 263 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 263 was invalid as it was addressed to a deceased person, thus lacking legal validity.

Jurisdiction for invoking revisionary powers:
The assessee argued that the Principal Commissioner erred in invoking revisionary powers under Section 263 without valid jurisdiction for adding income related to EPF contributions, as the case was under limited scrutiny for specific grounds. The assessee highlighted that the issues raised by the Principal Commissioner were beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny assessment conducted by the Assessing Officer.

Sustainability of the revisionary order:
The counsel for the assessee pointed out that the error noted by the Principal Commissioner regarding EPF contributions was not within the purview of the limited scrutiny assessment. The counsel cited legal precedents to support the contention that revisionary orders cannot be sustained when they pertain to issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's arguments, noting that the error highlighted by the Principal Commissioner was outside the limited scrutiny assessment, rendering the revisionary order unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 was not sustainable in law and directed it to be quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 29/08/2023 at Ahmedabad.