TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elected for limited scrutiny specifically for two reasons but due to lack of any other contrary material we are inclined to find that the case of the assessee has been selected for complete scrutiny. Had the case been selected for limited scrutiny then while converting the same into complete scrutiny an approval is required. Ample opportunities were provided to the assessee but there was no compliance. A perusal of the assessment order shows that ld. AO confined his examination only to the extent of gross turnover and profit disclosed by the assessee. No other issue has been taken up nor any addition has been made which shows that ld. AO has not exercised his jurisdiction beyond the two reasons for which scrutiny notice was issued. Now, this being the case then there hardly remains any grievance of the assessee as to whether the scrutiny was complete or limited, and the fact remains undisputed that a valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 02.09.2014 was issued and duly served upon the assessee and since the additions made in the assessment order (which have not been challenged by the assessee) either before the first appellate authority nor before this Tribunal, there remains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on behalf of the assessee. In past also the case has been fixed for hearing on almost fifteen occasions from 17.03.2020 onwards but no one has appeared. It seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. We, therefore, adjudicate the issue raised in the instant appeals based on the available records and submissions of ld. D/R. 3. We will first take up ITA No. 519/Kol/2019. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: The appellant - Assessee submitted his return of income for the assessment year 2014-2015 on 30-03-2015 electronically declaring total income of Rs.705766-/. The return was Selected for Scrutiny through CASS, but the appellant Assessee had not duly been intimated about the case falling either in Limited Scrutiny or Complete Scrutiny through notice issued Under Section 143(2) of the IT Act 61 by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the applicant - Assessee raised objection to such invalid notice as it was not issued as per CBDT s Circular. The Assessing Officer rejecting the objection completed the assessment u/s -144 of the IT Act at RS.12,15,034/-. Appeal was preferred against the assessment order before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ete scrutiny and not for limited scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was rightly served upon the assessee and no defect was pointed out by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the finding of the ld. CIT(A). None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order of both the authorities. 7. We have heard the ld. D/R and perused the records placed before us. On perusal of the grounds filed by the assessee, we note that no ground has been raised on merits of the case. The legality of the assessment proceedings has been challenged based on two contentions, firstly, the assessee was not intimated about the notice issued for selection of scrutiny as to whether the case of the assessee falls under limited scrutiny or complete scrutiny and secondly, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act is defective as observed by ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 8. We find that ld. CIT(A) dealt with this legal issue of correctness of the scrutiny notice and the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for which his case was selected for scrutiny, it was not necessary to do so. As such, there is no infirmity in his action. 9.4 The notice u/s 143(2) was defective: It was system generated notice under CASS. The AO did not create it. The Ld. AR has not pointed out what exactly was the defect in the said notice. Moreover, any specific detail that the Ld. AR might have wanted would be available only in cases of Limited Scrutiny . Therefore, the notice was not defective. 8.1. On going through the above finding of the ld. CIT(A) so far as the contention raised by the assessee that ld. CIT(A) has himself mentioned in the impugned order that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is defective is devoid of any merit because in para 9.4 of the impugned order ld. CIT(A) has given his finding and before giving his finding he has mentioned the issue as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was defective. Nowhere ld. CIT(A) has stated that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was defective. 8.2. As far as the second issue is concerned that in the scrutiny notice it was not mentioned whether the case was fixed for scrutiny for limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny. As rightly observed by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Passed under This Act, The Assessing Office Shall Serve upon the Assessee a notice of demand in the Prescribed form Specifying the sum so Payable. Assessing Officer has been defined in Sub-Section 7A of Section 2 of The IT Act 61. Under this Section Assessing Officer means the Assistant Commissioner or the Income Tax Officer who is Vested with the relevant Jurisdiction by virtue of directions or Orders issued Under Section 120(2) or any other Provision of This Act and The Joint Commissioner who is directed Under Section 120(4)(b) of The IT Act 61 to exercise or perform all or any of the power and functions Conferred or assigned to an Assessing Officer under The IT Act 61. In this case JCIT Circle-39, Midnapore, who was not directed u/s -120(4)(b) of The IT Act 61 to exercise or Perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred or assign to Assessing Officer Under the IT Act 61, issued the demand notice u/s 156 of the IT Act for Rs.10000/imposed u/s - 272A(1)(C) of the IT Act 61 for the Assessment year 2014-2015. Accordingly the demand notice under section 156 as well as penalty order is invalid under the IT Act and rules and deserves to be quashed. But th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
