TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id down the procedure which is required to be followed by the AO to consider the case which are originally earmarked for limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny and also requires the administrative approval from PCIT / CIT. Before us Revenue has neither pointed out any distinguishing features in the facts of the present case and that of Urban Improvement Cooperative Bank Limited [ 2020 (4) TMI 531 - ITAT DELHI ] nor has placed any material on record to demonstrate that the order of the Tribunal in the case of Urban Improvement Cooperative Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has been set aside/ stayed/ overruled by higher judicial forum. We therefore, following the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Urban Improvement Co-opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. That under the facts and circumstances the addition / disallowance of ₹ 11,05,.402/- u/s 14A r/w Rule-8D is illegal, unjustified and unsustainable in law and on merits. 1.1 That without prejudice, the issue of Sec. 14 since not covered in the limited scrutiny asstt., hence, the issue of addition u/s 14A r/w Rule-8D is outside the scope of impugned asstt. proceedings. 1.2 That without prejudice, as no expenditure has been incurred for earning the exempted income and also no such expense has been identified by the lower authorities, hence the disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule-8D in unwarranted. 1.3 That without prejudice, in the absence of recording of satisfaction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into complete scrutiny , the AO is required to take administrative approval from PCIT/ CIT in terms of instructions no. 5/2016 dated 14.07.2016 issued by CBDT and he is also required to comply with the directions contained therein. He submitted that in the present case, no administrative approval from the competent authority was obtained by the AO and in such a situation, the order passed by the AO being contrary to the instructions issued by the CBDT, is null and void and in support of his aforesaid contention, he relied on the following decisions:- i. Urban Improvement Company Co. Pvt. Ltd,. vs. ITO in ITA No. 7496/Del/2019 order dated 7.2.2020. ii. CBS International Projects Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT in ITA No. 144/Del/2019 order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich did not declared any dividend at all. He submitted that if the correct calculation by excluding the investments from which assessee has not earned any exempt income is worked out, the disallowance under section 14A will work out to ₹ 50,636/-. For the proposition that for working out the disallowance only those investments have to be considered from which the assessee has earned exempt income, he relied on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT 374 ITR Delhi 178. He thus submitted that in the present case, no disallowance under section 14A is called for. 9. Learned DR on the other hand relying on the order of the CIT(A) supported the order of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., (supra) after considering the instructions issued by CBDT has noted as under:- 12. The crux of the instructions are summarized as under: i. The questionnaire u/s 142(1) shall be confined only to the issue of limited scrutiny. ii. Approval of PCIT/CIT concern iii. PCIT/CIT concern shall grant approval in writing and after being satisfied on the merits of the case. iv. Such cases shall be monitored by range head. v. In limited scrutiny cases enquiry shall be restricted only on the issues of limited scrutiny. vi. Only after conversion of case to complete scrutiny and after following the procedure outlined above the A.O. may examined the issues other than limited scrutiny issues. v. The A.O. shall intimate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issues which are not inconsonance of the instruction of CBDT are liable to be quashed. The addition u/s 43CA, since beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny is hereby ordered to be deleted. 14. Before us Revenue has neither pointed out any distinguishing features in the facts of the present case and that of Urban Improvement Cooperative Bank Limited (supra) nor has placed any material on record to demonstrate that the order of the Tribunal in the case of Urban Improvement Cooperative Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has been set aside/ stayed/ overruled by higher judicial forum. We therefore, following the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Urban Improvement Co-operative Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and for similar reasons hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
