TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled that in case of limited scrutiny matter Ld. AO has to work within the parameters observed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes; instruction dated 29.12.2015 and various other circular issued in this behalf. Since the assessee s case was selected for limited scrutiny on certain issues and Ld. AO has examined these issues and framed the assessments and the issue of examination of payment to contractors was not a part of the limited scrutiny reasons, in our considered view, CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and also erred in holding that assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. CIT has held that the AO has failed to verify the cash payment made for purchase of goods which are not in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustainable. As per the finding of case of Rakesh Kumar [ 2018 (12) TMI 1718 - ITAT DELHI] hold that Ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act. The impugned order of Ld. Pr. CIT is quashed. Thus in our considered view assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the same is restored. All the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. - ITA No.119/Ind/2021 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2022 - SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri S.S. Deshpande AR For the Respondent : Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as assessed income vide assessment order dated 11.09.2017 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld.Pr. CIT assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and issued show cause notice observing that the assessee had made payment of Rs.1,16,71,785/- to the contractor whereas income tax at source was deducted only on payment of Rs.39,49,265/-. Based on this observation Ld. Pr. CIT held that the Ld. AO did not make any enquiry about the fact that whether the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the balance amount of payments and nothing is on record to show that Ld. AO had made verification as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act. Accordingly the assessment order dated 11.09.2017 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act was held as erroneou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANo.742/Mum/2019 (I.T.A.T., Mumbai) iii. Rakesh Kumar vs. CIT ITANo.6187/Del/2015 (I.T.A.T., Delhi) iv. Baby Memorial Hospital vs. ACIT ITANo.420/Coch/2019 (I.T.A.T., Cochin) 6. Per contra ld. DR supported the order of Ld. Pr. CIT. 7. We have heard rival contentions, perused the records placed before us. Through this appeal assessee has challenged the revisionary power assumed by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act. In the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act it is stated that Ld. AO has not verified the issue of tax deducted at source on the payments made to contractors in light of the provisions of section 194C of the Act. 8. Now first we need to examine that whether the ld. AO was required to examine the issue for payment to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 40A (3) of the income tax act. It is apparent from the audit objection filed before us at page number 30 of the paper book that the case of the assessee was selected for the scrutiny to verify only the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. The issue before us is whether assessing officer has made any enquiry with respect to the above purchases. Though, learned assessing officer has obtained the explanation of the assessee with respect to the purchases made by the assessee in cash, whether the learned assessing officer is required to make any such enquiry or not is also an issue. This because of the reason that the learned assessing officer was only required to verify the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the learned assessing officer passed under section 143 (3) of the act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is not correct. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned CIT is unsustainable. 10. In the above referred decision Tribunal has held that when the assessment is taken up for limited scrutiny, Ld. Pr. CIT/CIT cannot hold the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in respect of issue which was not a reason for selection of the case for limited scrutiny. Similar view also taken in the following decision: (i) The Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1013 1035/Pun/2014 - order dated 10.10.2017], ITAT Pune Benches. (ii) M/s.Aggarwal Promoters v. Pr.CIT [1708/Chd/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
