TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the A.O while framing the assessment. As a matter of fact, what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. A.O had aptly confined himself to the issue for which the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, therefore, no infirmity can be attributed to his order, for the reason, that he had failed to dwell upon certain other issues which were clearly beyond the realm of the reason for which the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny as per the AIR information. We thus not being able to concur with the view taken by the Pr. CIT that the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3), dated 10.10.2016 is erroneous, therefore, set aside his order and restore the order passed by the A.O. As we have quashed the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 on the ground of invalid assumption of jurisdiction by him, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and therein adjudicating the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R on the merits of the case, which thus are left open. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1906/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2019 - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member For Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S and notice under Sec. 143(2) was served upon the assessee. The A.O while framing the assessment deliberated on the various aspects and accepted the returned loss of ₹ 69,59,128/-, vide his order passed under Sec.143(3), dated 10.10.2016. 3. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of the powers vested with him under Sec. 263 of the Act, called for the records of the assessee. On examination of the assessment records, it was observed by the Pr. CIT viz. (i) that, though the assessee had not carried out any business activity during the year, however, it had claimed deduction of business expenses amounting to ₹ 30,76,083/-; and (ii) that, though the assessee had claimed to have transferred an asset i.e a shop from his investment account to fixed asset account during the year and had claimed depreciation @ 10% amounting to ₹ 39,23,530/-, however, the facts as regards the ownership of the said asset and its having been put to use during the year was not examined by the A.O while framing the assessment. On the basis of his aforesaid observations, the Pr. CIT issued a Show cause‟ notice under Sec.263, dated 28.01.2019 to the assessee, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by the ld. A.R that the fact that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason viz. large investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income was an admitted fact and had not been disputed by the Pr. CIT. In order to drive home his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R drew our attention to the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263, wherein the aforesaid factual position was clearly discernible. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that in case of a limited scrutiny assessment the A.O is prohibited from adverting to the issues except for those on the basis of which the case had been selected for being scrutinized. In order to fortify his aforesaid claim the ld. A.R had relied on the order of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal viz. (i) Smt. Gurpreet Kaur Vs. ITO, ITA No. 87/ASR/2016, dated 24.03.2016; (ii) Shashi Bhushan Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Vs. ITO,ITA No.1589/Pun/2018, dated 04.04.2019. It was thus the contention of the ld. A.R that now when it was forbidden for the A.O to have adverted to and therein adjudicated on the aspect of allowability of business expenses, as the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them. Admittedly, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason viz. large investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income . Insofar the fact that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the aforesaid reason is concerned, the same as observed by us hereinabove is not disputed and is clearly discernible from the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 of the Act. We find that as per the CBDT guidelines/instructions bearing F. No. 225/26/2006, ITA-II(Pt.), dated 08.09.2010, scrutiny of cases selected on the basis of information received through AIR returns would be limited only to aspects of the information so received. In order to appreciate the issue under consideration, we deem it fit to cull out the CBDT instruction, dated 08.09.2010, which reads as under: F.No.225/26/2006-ITA.II (Pt.) Government of India, Ministry of Finance Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or scrutiny assessment viz. large investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income . 7. As observed by us hereinabove, as per the CBDT Instruction F. No.225/26/2006-ITA-II (Pt.), dated 08.09.2010, in a case which had been selected for scrutiny assessment on the basis of information received through the AIR returns, the scrutinising of such case would be limited only to the aspects of the information received through AIR. However, the case may thereafter be taken up for wider scrutiny with the approval of the administrative commissioner, where it is felt that apart from the AIR information there is potential escapement of income of more than ₹ 10,00,000/-. Accordingly, the CBDT had in clear and unequivocal terms clarified that for broadening the scope of a case selected for limited scrutiny as per AIR information, the approval of the administrative commissioner would be required. In the case of before us, it is an admitted fact that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason viz. large investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income . In fact, it is neither a fact nor the case of the revenue that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason viz. large investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income , therefore, no infirmity could be attributed to the assessment framed by the A.O on the ground that he had failed to deal with other issues which did not fell within the realm of the limited reason for which the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. In other words, the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be permitted to traverse beyond the jurisdiction that was vested with the A.O while framing the assessment. To sum up, revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised for broadening the scope of jurisdiction that was vested with the A.O while framing the assessment. As a matter of fact, what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as the A.O had aptly confined himself to the issue for which the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, therefore, no infirmity can be attributed to his order, for the reason, that he had failed to dwell upon certain other issues which were clearly beyond the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
