9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act dated 22.04.2019 was issued to the assessee calling for details. In response to the notice under section 142(1) of the act, the assessee uploaded explanation letter regarding source for cash deposit, income computation statement, bank statement, agricultural income and expenditure account, land holding documents, wealth tax return and other details. By considering the above details, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 27.09.2019. 3. Subsequently, by exercising the power conferred under section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT issued show cause notice to the assessee on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not examined the purchase of land vide document No. 1919/2016 and 1918/2016 and its difference in cost of Rs..2,76,600/- and Rs..25,00,950/- respectively. In response to the above show cause notice, the assessee filed detailed explanation. By considering the explanation of the assessee, the ld. PCIT has directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment by observing as under: "5. The submissions of assessee supra, the facts of the case and the impugned assessment order have been carefully considered. The only issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifference amount of Rs.27,77,570 being the value as per Section 47A(1) of the Act requires thorough examination vis-a-vis the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. As this aspect was completely omitted to be looked upon by the AO while passing the scrutiny assessment order. In view of the discussions above, the order of assessment passed by the AO u/s.143(3) dated 27.09.2019 is made without verification of the facts. The order so made, suffers in as much as it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, requiring an intervention to cure the order made erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. In order to remedy the said error in the order of assessment in the instant case made on 27.09.2019 for the assessment year 2017-18, the recourse would be to resort to provisions of sec.263 of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the AO dated 27.09.2019 for the assessment year 2017-18 in the case of the captioned assesses is, set aside, in exercise of the powers vested in me u/s. 263 of the Act. 7. The Assessing Officer, is hereby, directed to re-do the assessment afresh with regard to the above issue of invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Further, the ld. Counsel relied on the decision in the case of Subbanadar Chandra Sekar v. ITO in ITA No. 612/Chny/2021 dated 06.12.2022 and submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the cash deposit and purchase of agricultural land are inter-linked and therefore, the entire activity comes within the scope of limited scrutiny. Therefore, the ld. PCIT has rightly invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and strongly supported the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT. 6. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS "LIMITED SCRUTINY" category to examine the deposits made during demonetisation. The assessee purchased the agricultural land on 14.07.2016, which is much prior to the cash deposits during demonetisation. Therefore, the land purchased by the assessee has nothing to do with the cash deposits made during demonetisation and both are different. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion can also be examined during the course of conduct of assessment proceedings in such 'Limited Scrutiny' cases with prior administrative approval of the concerned Pr. CIT/CIT. 4. It is pertinent to mention that unlike CASS 2015 and 2016 cycles, where consideration of any additional issue lead to the conversion of case to 'Complete Scrutiny' as laid down in Instruction No. 5/2016 dated 14.07.16, the pending 'Limited Scrutiny' cases of CASS 2017 and 2018 cycles would not be taken up for 'Complete Scrutiny' as the present directive is only to facilitate consideration of those issues wherein specific information of tax-evasion has been furnished by any law-enforcement/intelligence/regulatory authority or agency. Therefore, in such 'Limited Scrutiny' cases, Assessing Officer shall not expand the scope of enquiry/investigation beyond the issue(s) on which the case was flagged for 'Limited Scrutiny' & issue arising from nature of information mentioned in para 2 and 3, above. 5. The following procedure shall be adopted while examining the additional issue: i. The Assessing Officer shall duly record the reasons for expanding the scope of 'Limited Scrutiny' to the extent mentioned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that the assessment for the impugned assessment year has been taken up for limited scrutiny to verify large cash deposits into savings bank account and the Assessing Officer has completed assessment after verifying cash deposits in savings bank account and has made additions, when the assessee was unable to explain source for part of cash deposits. It is an admitted position of law that in limited scrutiny assessments, scope of verification is limited to the issues mentioned in the notice issued under CASS system. The Assessing Officer cannot travel beyond the issues on which assessment has been taken up for scrutiny. Therefore, once the Assessing Officer does not have power to go beyond the issues on which he has taken up case for scrutiny, then obviously, the learned PCIT cannot term the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous, insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue on issues other than the issue taken up by the Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessment proceedings. In this case, on perusal of materials available on record, we find that the learned PCIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
