Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 75 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Purchase of land in the name of Employees showing the sum as loan to employees - Benami Property - Additions u/s 69/69B - Non conversion of limited scrutiny assessment into complete scrutiny assessment - Whether the assessment was made u/s 153A or u/s 143(3) - non-recording of satisfaction and any notice u/s. 153A(1) - HELD THAT:- The question is not if an assessment u/s. 153A (1) r/w. section 153C could be, even assuming so, being itself a very precarious and tenuous issue, made, but validity of the assessment as made. That there is no basis, factual or legal, for an assessment u/s. 153A(1) r/w s. 153C in the instant case, has been made abundantly clear. Revision u/s 263 - Failure on the part of AO to convert into complete scrutiny - HELD THAT:- No difference could be drawn between the two categories of assessments – limited and comprehensive, except the Board Instruction limiting the scope of inquiry in one category of assessments. However, what when the Board Instruction itself enjoins him to get the said scope extended in the appropriate cases? And which aspect is not in dispute; rather, patent from the Board Instruction. Now, it cannot be that one Board instruction is binding and the other not, or one part of it is binding and the other not. That would clearly be ludicrous and without any legal basis; in fact, would make an order stating so as self-contradictory. As afore-noted, vide the amendment afore-referred, an order not made in accordance with an order, direction or instruction issued u/s. 119, is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. There is, it may be appreciated, no absolute bar in law for extension of scope of inquiry, but only one formulated by the Board, as a matter of policy, toward better management of tax assessments. The same therefore itself provides for extension of the said scope in appropriate cases. Not only is the said Instruction binding, not observing its mandate makes an assessment made in disregard thereof as infirm and, accordingly, liable for revision u/s. 263. In view of the foregoing, the direction by the ld. Pr. CIT for adjudicating the issue/s in accordance with law, i.e., without any fetter, cannot be faulted with.
|