TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus we quash the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee. - I.T.A. No.228/Chny/2022 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2023 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri H. Yeshwant Kumar, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri M. Rajan, CIT ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore dated 22.02.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short]. 2. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.12.2017 admitting total income of ₹.10,94,850/- and claimed agricultural income of ₹.36,75,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS LIMITED SCRUTINY category. The reason description for selection was Cash deposit during demonetisation . Notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 09.08.2018 was issued and served to the assessee. Further notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 22.04.2019 was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar section should be read in a simple and normal way. Therefore, the word used in this section any should be construed in the normal sense and this should not be deflected in a way that defeats the intention of the legislature. However, it can be argued that the phrase 'capital asset' has been defined vide section 2(14) is not only for the purposes of capital gains and for the entire purposes of the Act and hence, the immoveable property which is not in the nature of capital asset is not taxable under section 56(2) of the Act. However, 'such a view narrows the ambit of section 56(2) and expanding the exclusion list provided in the said section. If that was the intention of the legislature, the exclusions provided in Section 56(2) of the Act should have specifically mentioned that only capital assets are covered and all others are excluded. Nothing of such sort, is mentioned in the aforesaid section. Hence, all immoveable properties, whether or not capital assets, are subject to tax under section 56(2) of the Act. The provisions of section 56(2) are wider and cannot be restricted by any means, except as specified under the Act. Therefore, the difference amount of Rs.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er cannot examine the agricultural land purchased much prior to cash deposited. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be said that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He also pointed out by referring to para 3 of CBDT circular F.No. 225/402/2018/ITA.II dated 28.11.2018 that the Assessing Officer cannot examine except what is provided in the above circular at para 3. The relevant para is reproduced as under: 3. The matter has been considered by the Board. In order to enable proper enquiry/investigation in pending Limited Scrutiny cases which were selected through CASS cycles of 2017 and 2018, where credible material or information has been/is provided by any law-enforcement/ intelligence/regulatory authority or agency regarding tax-evasion by an assessee, it has been decided by the Board that issues arising from such information 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. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crutiny cases, Assessing Officer cannot travel beyond the issue(s) for which the case was selected. The idea behind such a stipulation is to enforce checks and balances upon powers of an Assessing Officer to do fishing and roving enquiries in cases under Limited Scrutiny . 2. In this regard, several representations have been received in the Board from the field authorities that in several cases under Limited Scrutiny , information pointing out specific tax-evasion for the relevant year, given by any law-enforcement/ intelligence/regulatory authority or agency is available with the concerned Assessing Officer, however, in view of the restrictive nature of enquiry/investigation which can be made in Limited Scrutiny cases, the same presently cannot be acted upon. 3. The matter has been considered by the Board. In order to enable proper enquiry/investigation in pending Limited Scrutiny cases which were selected through CASS cycles of 2017 and 2018, where credible material or information has been/is provided by any law-enforcement/ intelligence/regulatory authority or agency regarding tax-evasion by an assessee, it has been decided by the Board that issues arising from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. It may be brought to the notice of all for necessary compliance. Upon perusal of para-3 of above instructions, it could be seen that the scope of limited scrutiny for CASS cycles 2017 and 2018 could be widened only upon receipt of credible material or information from any law enforcement / intelligence / regulatory authority or agency regarding tax-evasion by an assessee. In such a case, the issues arising from such information could 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. However, in the present case, we find that there is no such credible material or information which would justify widening the scope of limited scrutiny. Therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT, in our considered opinion, could not term the assessment order as erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue since the flagged issues, could otherwise be not examined by Ld. AO during the course of regular assessment proceedings. 7. Our view is duly supported by the recent decision of this Tribunal in Mr. Yuvaraj vs. ITO (ITA No.1722/Chny/2019 order dated 07.03.2022) wherein the bench held as under: - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
