TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round for regarding his order as erroneous. The various returns, as the Annual Information Report (AIR), TDS returns, etc., are fed into the computer along with the related parameters, viz. mismatch in the stated sale consideration of an immovable property and the value adopted/assessed by the stamp valuation authority; the expenditure claimed per the return of income and that on which tax stands deducted at source, etc. These, then, are the parameters with reference to which the computer picks up/selects cases for limited scrutiny. The mismatch/discrepancy, etc. constitutes the reason/s for which an assessee s case stands selected under the limited scrutiny regime, which is required to be intimated thereto (paras 2(iv), 3(a) of the Instruction). All aspects pertaining to this matter could be validly examined in a limited scrutiny assessment that is to follow. The cost of construction, or its indexation, though related to the computation of capital gains, cannot be said to be specific issues arising in the verification of the sale consideration, i.e., the specific area or field qua which the enquiry could only be directed. This is as the Board Instruction is u/s.119 bind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e s return of income for relevant year, filed on 6.9.2014, was selected for verification by the issue of notice u/s. 143(2) (PB pg. 27), i.e., as a limited scrutiny case through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The same was only for verification of the sale consideration of the property sold by the assessee during the relevant year as it was below that reported in Annual Information Report (AIR). The ld. PCIT, however, has per the impugned order required the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine other computational aspects of the capital gain, viz. cost of construction; its indexation, as well, and which he could not. Toward the same, he would take us through the Board Instruction No.20/2015, dated 29.12.2015 (PB pgs. 28-29), para 2 whereof clarifies the scope of enquiry in a case selected under CASS. Only specific issue based enquiry is to be made in the cases selected under CASS. If the AO wishes to enquire or examine other aspects of the return, including the capital gain on the property under reference, the same would require him to, following the procedure in this regard, covert it into a complete scrutiny assessment, and which has not been done in the instant case. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereby what is contemplated is the examination of all the relevant aspects in relation to the said claim. The reason in the instant case is restricted to the verification of returned sale consideration vis-a-vis that referred to in sec. 50C, being apparently inconsistent therewith, and in respect of which due enquiry has been made by the AO in assessment. Further on, the scope of enquiry stated in Instruction 20/2015, referred to earlier, is per CASS-2014, while what would apply in the assessee s case is CASS-2015 as the notice u/s. 143(2) stand issued on 29.8.2015. Para 3 of the Instruction No.20/2015, which relates to CASS-2015, was also gone through during hearing. On a query by the Bench, Sh. Doshi would though admit that the sale consideration as assessed (₹ 147.50 lacs) was short of the consideration u/s.50C (AIR), i.e., ₹ 147.66 lacs, and to that extent, also directed for correction by the ld. PCIT per the impugned order, he had no grievance, though would add that the same could also have been made by way of a rectification u/s.154. 4. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. 4.1 Admittedly, the sale consideration adopted in asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selection of case for scrutiny to the assessee concerned. 3. As far as the returns selected for scrutiny through CASS-2015 are concerned, two types of cases have been selected for scrutiny in the current Financial Year - one is Limited Scrutiny and the other is Complete Scrutiny . The assessees concerned have duly been intimated about their cases falling either in Limited Scrutiny or Complete Scrutiny through notices issued section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). The procedure for handling Limited Scrutiny cases shall be as under: a. In Limited Scrutiny cases the reasons/issues shall be forthwith communicated to the assessee concerned. b. The Questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act in Limited Scrutiny cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny. Further, the scope of enquiry shall be restricted to the Limited Scrutiny issues. c. d. ( emphasis, ours ) The reference in the opening sentence (of the para 2) is to Instruction 7/2014, As apparent, Instruction 20/2015 is applicable both to cases selected for limited scrutiny under CASS-2014 as well as under CA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. In view of the forgoing, we, subject to the upward adjustment of the sale consideration by ₹ 0.16 lacs, i.e., to ₹ 147.66 lacs, conceded to before us, uphold the assessee s claim. A clarification, though, may be in order here. The computer does not formulate or enumerate the issues arising, but only throws up the areas, based on defined parameters, for being examined in a limited scrutiny assessment. The said formulation would require consideration of the relevant facts; related aspects; explanation/s furnished, etc., and due application of mind by the assessing authority. It was, thus, fully open for the AO in the present case to have considered and, upon so, reject the assessee s claim of commission on the sale of property, stated at ₹ 4.60 lacs, deducted from the sale consideration, which was the reason for the same being reported at a lower figure. Likewise, for the short assessment by ₹ 0.16 lacs. It is, therefore, incorrect to say, as Sh. Doshi does before us, that only issues in the contemplation of the mind of the computer could be examined under a limited scrutiny case. Needless to add, our order is principally in agreement with that by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
