TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO could not have travelled beyond such scope to enquire about TDS details which was not the subject-matter of such limited scrutiny. Nonetheless these TDS details were called for by the AO and verified and they were duly submitted by the assessee. DR could not refute these facts on record. In such scenario, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We hold that the assumption of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 and consequent order passed by the Pr.CIT is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.288/Kol/2021 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2021 - Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice-President And Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhury, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Amol Sudhirkamat, CIT-DR ORDER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHOUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of Ld. Pr. CIT(A)- 2, Kolkata u/s 263 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 for the assessment year 2016-17 as per the following grounds of appeal: 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT was unjustifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the Act wherein the Annexure serial no.8 , the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to furnish reconciliation of TDS in a certain given format. Thereafter, the assessee had furnished reply to all these notices and queries vide letter dated 12.03.2018 to the Assessing Officer and submitted the reconciliation of TDS as per the given format. It is the contention of the assessee that first of all this was a case of limited scrutiny where the issues were specific for the purposes of scrutiny assessment and the Assessing Officer cannot travel beyond that given scope of limited scrutiny as per law. That however as per notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had asked for details of TDS which the assessee nonetheless has complied with and furnished all the details that even before the Pr. CIT, the assessee has given the details of tax deduction at source as is evident from pages 55 to 67 of the paper-book. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the Pr. CIT has not dealt with these submissions filed by the assessee nor has given any findings regarding the details of TDS furnished before him which was already before the Assessing Officer as had been demonstrated before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 10,00,000/-, since the assessee s case was selected for scrutiny only for limited purpose under CASS and the issue of Insurance Premium (Keyman Policy) of ₹ 10,00,000/- was not the reason for selection of the case for limited scrutiny. Therefore, as per the CBDT circular (supra) the AO could not have initiated enquiry on the issue of Insurance Premium (Keyman Policy) of ₹ 10,00,000/- and it is settled law that CBDT circulars are binding on income tax authorities. Therefore in such a scenario, the Ld. PCIT could not have invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act because he could not have held the AO s order to be erroneous because the AO was justified in not enquiring in to the issue of Insurance Premium (Keyman Policy) of ₹ 10,00,000/-, since the AO has gone as per the dictum of CBDT circular on the subject. Therefore, the AO s action/ omission of not looking into the issue of Insurance Premium (Keyman Policy) of ₹ 10,00,000/- cannot be termed as erroneous . And, therefore, the Ld. PCIT could not have invoked revisional jurisdiction since AO s omission not to look into the issue of keyman policy was in consonance with the CBDT dictum on the subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r AY 2014-15 dated 31.01.2020 which is placed at page 62 to 70 wherein the Tribunal held as under: 8. Next comes the assessee s second substantive argument that since the Assessing Officer had framed his regular assessment involving limited scrutiny on the above stated issues not including sec. 33AB deduction to the purpose of the impugned withdrawals. We find that the same is duly covered in its favor as per this tribunal s co-ordinate bench s decision in ITA No.1361/Kol/2016 in Sanjeev K. Khemka vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-15, Kolkata decided on 02.06.2017 as under:- 4. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the materials on record. The primary issue in the case on hand revolves whether it is a case selected under CASS for limited scrutiny or regular scrutiny. It can be seen from the grounds of appeal that the assessee wants to contend that the very initiation of proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act on the basis of regular scrutiny under the Act was bad in law. The proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act should have been limited to the extent of the information gathered through AIR. Accordingly the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
