TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the AR in the light of the documents and details placed on record. Further as pointed out by the ld. counsel the issues examined by the assessee during the limited scrutiny were different from the issues raised by the Ld. PCIT in the impugned order. This Bench of the Tribunal has already held in the case of Tej Paul Bhardwaj [ 2021 (5) TMI 485 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] that the ld. PCIT has exceeded jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by directing the AO to make fresh assessment on the issues which were not the subject matter of assessment framed in limited scrutiny. Since the issue involved in the present appeal is identical to the issue involved in the case of Tej Paul Bhardwaj vs PCIT (supra), we do not find any reason for taking a different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act. In response thereof the authorized representative (AR) of the assessee appeared before the AO and furnished the documents / details called for. On the basis of the details filed and the explanation given on behalf of the assessee, the AO accepted the return of the assessee. 3. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act inter alia asking the assessee to explain about interest free loans and advances to related parties and claim of expenditure on interest on tax. Since the Ld. PCIT did not receive any response to the notice u/s 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT passed order under section 263 of the Act on the basis of material on record and set aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act holding the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal. All the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 5. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the legal ground raised by the assessee in this case is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tej Paul Bhardwaj vs. PCIT reported in (2021) 88 ITR 352 (Chd. Trib.) The Ld. counsel further submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the sales turnover mismatch and expenditure of personal nature. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The AO after examining the documents/ details furnished by the assessee in response to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supporting the order passed by the ld. PCIT submitted that since the AO had not examined the issues raised in the impugned order, the ld. PCIT has rightly invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and directed the AO to make enquiries on the issues mentioned in the order. However, the ld. DR did not bring to our notice any decision to controvert the contentions of the ld. counsel for the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the decision of the B Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of Tej Paul Bhardwaj Vs PCIT (supra) and other cases relied upon by the Ld. counsel. Admittedly, the assessee s case was selected f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
