TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elected for limited scrutiny under CASS. On going through order u/s 263, we find that the order u/s 263 passed by the ld. PCIT dwelled into the issue of re-computation of capital gains which is beyond the mandate of the limited scrutiny issued by the CBDT. Hence, the directions of the ld. PCIT which are beyond the selection criteria of scope of scrutiny for the instant year cannot be held to be legally valid. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 1817/Del/2020 (Asstt. Year: 2015-16) - - - Dated:- 16-6-2021 - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Assessee by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, CA Revenue by : Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, in substance, relate to the contention that the proceeding initiated and order passed u/s 263 by ld. PCIT is liable to be quashed as it is bad in law, without jurisdiction. 4. The facts of the case are that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 21.08.2015 declaring income of ₹ 67,050/-. The case of the appellant was selected for limited scrutiny. The issues of limited scrutiny were:- I) Cash deposit II) Purchase of property 5. The ld. PCIT issued notice dated 31.01.2020 u/s 263 of the Act asking the assessee to furnish reply by 07.02.2020. The said notice is enclosed in the paper book at page no. 1 2. Para 2 to 4 of this notice is reproduced as under for ready reference: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ₹ 11,73,801/- should have been brought to tax. The AO has failed to bring to tax capital gain of ₹ 11,73,801/-. The above computation is as per figure provided by you during assessment proceeding. In addition, it is further observed that you have claimed a sum of ₹ 4,62,000/- towards repair and white wash of property purchased. This is not admissible as deduction u/s 54. You have also claimed cost of improvement of ₹ 3,62,667/- and expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for transfer of property of ₹ 1,72,980/-. This is admissible only if evidence of such expense is produced. Similarly expense of ₹ 1,33,000/- claimed as Brokerage expense toward purchase of new house is admissib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed al lowing any relief without inquiring into the claim: (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decision may kindly be considered with regard to validity of proceedings u/s 263 of I.T. Act: 1. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITQ (Appeal No. 2396 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC) where Hon ble Supreme Court held that where Assessing Officer had accepted entry in statement of account fi led by assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified. 5. Raimandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT I70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta)/[2016] 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512] where Hon ble Calcutta High Court held that where assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital, raised a huge sum on account of premium and chose not to go in for increase of authorised share capital merely to avoid payment of statutory fees and Assessing Officer passed assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at two issues have been identified for examination which were a. Verification of cash deposits b. verification of purchase of property 11. From the record, we find that the complete details pertaining to both the issues have been examined by the AO and the replies of the assessee dated 27.10.2017 along with the details of purchase of property and registration document. The entire details of the said two transactions which are the subject matter of scrutiny have been duly provided and examined by the AO and duly accepted after examination and verification. 12. We find that the ld. PCIT has also mentioned at para no. 2 that the case has been selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. On going through order u/s 263, we find that the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
