TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Limited. The moment Assessing Officers have dispelled onus discharged by the assessee, then it was their duty to prove the genuineness of their claim with circumstantial evidence as pointed out by the ld. Commissioner in the case of Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited, i.e. what was the purpose of the donation; whether such donation has been given to the School in the past or in the future; whether the Corporate Houses have discussed in the meeting and the Management Committee passed the Resolution for giving the donations; what influenced the assessee to give this donation to the Institution other than deduction under section 35(1)(ii) etc. Benefit of claim under section 35(1)(ii) is outcome of an organized fraud with the help of certain manipulators. Therefore, we do not find any material in the first-fold of arguments raised by the ld. Counsels for the assessees. The appellants are not entitled for deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. As argued notice issued u/s 143(2) for scrutinising the return of assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 is without jurisdiction - The argument of the assessee is that had the returns were placed before the Deputy Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Once computer identifies a particular case for selection of scrutiny, then on the basis of PAN data, notice is to be issued upon the assessee providing an opportunity to the assessee that its case has been selected for scrutiny assessment and kindly submit what the assessee wants to submit in support of the return. As observed earlier, the process of selection for scrutiny does not contemplate any discretion in the Assessing Officer. He is bound to follow the CBDT guidelines issued for the purpose of selection of the cases for scrutiny. Thus in this case also, the ld. Assessing Officer has issued the notice on the basis of PAN Data, which infuses jurisdiction in ITO, Ward-10 and thereafter following the Instruction No. 1 of 2011, the case was taken up for determination of taxable income by the ld. Deputy Commissioner. There is no violation in the procedure. Hence, additional ground of appeal is rejected. Validity of reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- As we are of the view that ld. Assessing Officer did not commit any error in reopening the assessment. The information supplied by the Principal DIT(Investigation), Kolkata was sufficient to harbour be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer for considering disallowance of Rs. 87,50,000/- under normal provisions for computing book profit and thereby erred in calculating the book profit at Rs. 4,17,01,736/- as against returned book profit of Rs. 3,29,51,736/-. (c) The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in charging interest under section 234C of the Income Tax Act. 2.1. In rest of the grounds, i.e. Grounds No. 1 11, it has not raised any specific grievance. Similarly Grounds No. 3 to 6 are supporting arguments with Ground No. 2. 2.2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company has filed its return of income electronically on 29.09.2013 disclosing total income at Rs. 2,41,07,380/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 04.09.2014, which was duly served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter issued a questionnaire by way of a notice under section 142(1). During the course of assessment proceeding, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that assessee has claimed weighted deduction of Rs. 87,50,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of A.Y. 2014-15. In this ground, the assessee has not raised any specific grievance. In A.Y. 2014-15, it has raised one more ground of appeal whereby it has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 13,12,500/-, which was claimed deduction @ 175% in respect of donation of Rs. 7,50,000/- to Maitribani Institute of Experimental Research Foundation. 3.4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 and 29.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 61,76,369/- and Rs. 62,00,581/- respectively in A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014- 15. The returns of both the years were selected for scrutiny assessment and notices under section 143(2) were issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer found that the assessee has given donation to SHG PH, similarly to Maitribani Institute of the Experimental Research Foundation, Kolkata. He observed that both the Trusts were involved in providing accommodation entries in lieu of such donations. SHG PH has admitted this fact before the Settlement Commissioner and offered its commission income for providing such an accommodation to the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer accordingly disallowed the claim of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 35(1)(ii) amounting to Rs. 17,50,000/-. 5.2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income electronically on 27.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 1,43,82,590/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee has paid a donation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to M/s. SHG PH. It has claimed deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act @ 175% of the donation given by it. In this way, a deduction of Rs. 17,50,000/- was claimed. The ld. Assessing Officer has made reference towards the evidence collected by Investigation team on the recipient of the donation, i.e. on the SHG PH. The ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee as to how such recipient was involved in providing accommodation entry under the garb of receipt of donation and as to how the recipient has admitted this fact on oath before the Settlement Commission. Contrary to this confrontation, nothing was submitted by the assessee and accordingly ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed the deduction claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, however, its grievances revolve around two issues, namely- (a) ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment; (b) ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,25,000/-, which was claimed as a deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. In rest of the grounds, the assessee has raised supporting arguments qua these two issues. 7.2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 4,26,540/-. This return was processed under section 143(1). The assessment of the assessee was reopened by issuance of a notice under section 148 on 05.11.2015. The ld. Assessing Office has reopened the assessment on the strength of information received from the Director (Investigation), Kolkata exhibiting the fact that assessee is a beneficiary of alleged bogus donation given by it. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the assessee that it has given a donation of Rs. 7,00,000/- to M/s. Horticulture Harbal Healthcare Bio-Harbal Research Foundation and claimed weighted deduction @175% of the dona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 13,08,950/- and Rs. 13,74,490/- respectively in A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014- 15. All the returns of the assessee involved in both the years were for scrutiny assessment. It was found that the assessee has given bogus donation to School of Human Genetics and Population Health in both the years and such claim of the assessee has been disallowed. The facts of the present appeals are common with ITA No. 2448 2449/KOL/2019 discussed in immediate preceding paragraph in the case of assessee M/s. Hiralal Bhandari as represented the legal heir of Late Champalal Bhandari. The earlier appeals are of Late Shri Champalal Bhandari, Kolkata, which are being represented by the assessee. The facts on all vital points are common in all these four appeals. 10 . ITA No. 2385/KOL/2019 The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 30.08.2019 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 10.1. In the solitary substantial ground of appeal, the assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 26,25,000/-, which was claimed as a deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. 10.2. Brief facts of the case are that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Institute when it has made donation. If any subsequent enquiry was made, it unearthed that such recipient was receiving bogus donation beyond the control of the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He disallowed the claim of the assessee and made the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- by way of an assessment order dated 29.11.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 12. ITA No. 2449/KOL/2019 (M/s. Hiralal Bhandari) The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 28.08.2019 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 12.1. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 61,25,000/-, which was claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.. 12.2. The facts in the present year are almost verbatim except variation of the amounts as available in A.Y. 2013-14 discussed in ITA No. 2448/KOL/2019. Question in dispute 13. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. The solitary issue involved in all these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Arguments: 17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments of donation by all these appellants were made to the Institution, who was enjoying the benefit of registration with the Department. In other words, the section contemplates approval of prescribed authority for carrying out research work. If such approval is available, then donations given by the donor is allowed to be deduction given in the provision. While elaborating this contention, he submitted that authorities whenever required to approve any Institute engaged in research work, they carry out necessary inquiries/ investigation to ensure the genuineness of such Institution and after analysis all the objects, activities, personnel, who will be managing such organisation, they approve such an organisation to receive donation. Thus a person/entity, who wishes to avail the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as, Addl. CIT, Sr. D.R. Thereafter Shri Arup Chatterjee, ld. Sr. D.R. represented the Revenue. In the case of Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited, a paper book has been filed by the Revenue running into 268 pages. In this paper book, the Revenue has placed on record the papers recovered during the course of survey conducted at the premises of the recipient of the donations. It has also placed on record the copy of the Settlement Order passed in the case of the recipient. Such order is available on pages no. 52 to 62. On pages no. 63 to 81, a list of the alleged bogus donors has been placed by the Revenue. Such list has been prepared on the basis of alleged brokers, who have arranged the donations to the Institution and a total revenue received through by means of such donation is Rs,159,36,11,602/-. In other words, it is Rs. 159.36 crores. Similarly one more list has been placed on pages no. 136 to 159, where the Revenue has complied with PAN, Data, who has availed weighted deduction on this bogus donation. On the strength of all these details, it was submitted by the Revenue that during the course of assessment proceedings in all these appeals, the ld. Assessing Officer has confro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble High Court has considered the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Batanagar Education Research Trust and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. In this case also, registration under section 12AA was cancelled by the ld. Commissioner by exercising the powers under section 12AA(3) of the Act. This cancellation was set aside by the Tribunal and Revenue carried the matter before the Hon ble High Court, who upheld the order of the ITAT by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. On the strength of this decision, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Hon ble High Court has explained the ratio laid down in Batanagar Education Research Trust and, therefore, this subsequent decision is to be followed. Finding:- 23. The Department has filed a paper book containing 268 pages in M/s. Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited. On second page of the paper book, order of the Settlement Commission dated 22.07.2016 passed under section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act has been placed on record. In this order, Settlement Commission has noticed the facts of assessee before them, i.e. SHG PH. Such facts have been noticed by them on the basis of statement of facts filed befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Direct Taxes) 24. The Governing Body members of the recipient are as under: (a) Dr. Madhumita Roychoudhury President (b) Dr. Shyamal Kumar Nandy Vice-President (c) Dr. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar Secretary (d) Ms. Basanti Rauth Assistant Secretary (e) Mrs. Moumita Raghavan Treasurer (f) Mr. Gautam Das Executive Member (g) Dr. Debashis Mukherjee Executive Member 25. The Society, carried scientific research in the field inherited genetic diseases, cancer genetics (leukemia) and Geriatric disorders in the research lab. The donee had pursued research in the community understand the population, i.e. monarchial age, nutrition status and reproductive health issues. It is stated that at the level of community welf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Documents impounded School of Human Genetics Population Health, 6A, Malanga Lane, Kolkata-700012 Books of accounts Cash Bank A/c. Debit/Credit Card A 3 2 4 SHG/1 to SHG/8 and SHG/PD/1 (one Pen Drive) Rs. 82,400/- 16 nos. 4 nos. SHG/1 to SHG/8 and SHG/PD/1 (one Pen Drive) NIL NIL NIL 28. The main allegation and reason for the survey against the donee was that it had received huge amount of donations on which the applicant society earned service charges. During the survey operation, statements of the Secretary and the Treasurer of the Society were recorded in which they admitted the fact of accepting donations through certain mediators and refunding the same after keeping 3% - 8% as service charges for the society. 29. In 2019, one of us was posted ITAT, Ahmedabad Vice-President (Judicial Member), when first time such issue came up for consideration. Deduction of Rs. 8,75,000/- was claimed by the assessee and we passed the order in ITA No. 1943/AHD/2017. This order was followed in ITA No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anism with the assessee to verify whether such donee was a genuine institute or not, which can avail donation from the society. 5. The Id. DR, on the other hand, contended that in the investigation it came to know about bogus affairs conducted by the donee. Hence, these donations are rightly been treated as bogus, and addition is rightly made. 6. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The AO is harping upon an information supplied by the survey tern of Calcutta. He has not specifically recorded statement of representative of the donee. He has not brought on record a specific evidence wherein donee has deposed that donations received from the assessee was paid back in cash after deducting commission. On the basis of general information collected from the donee, the donation made by the assessee cannot be doubted. Neither representatives of the donee have been put to cross-examination, nor any specific reply deposing that such donation was not received, or if received the same was repaid in cash, has been brought on record. In the absence of such circumstances, donation given by the assessee to the donee, on which the assessee no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no question of law involved in the factual finding given by the Tribunal in all the cases. Thus on facts the orders of the Tribunal were upheld. 33. Let us take note of the material placed before us persuading us to record a finding of fact being a last authority on this aspect. There is no dispute that a survey under section 133A was carried out at the premises of M/s. SHG PH as well as M/s. Herbicure Healthcare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation (in short HHBRF ) because Abhilasha Tradecom Pvt. Limited obtained the accommodation entry from this Institution and issue is involved in ITA No. 132/KOL/2021. In this survey, statement of the Secretary of M/s. SHG PH was recorded. The Secretary has admitted that the Trust has not used such amount in any research activity, rather it has received the donation in a connived manner on the alliance of certain brokers. They have pleaded specifically in their statement of facts before the Settlement Commission that certain brokers have approached them for augmentation of their revenue in this fraudulent manner and without realising the seriousness of its impact upon the economy in general and Income Tax Department in particular. They involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. Q.7. Kindly go through the Annexure-A which is submitted by you in the case of SHG PH. Kindly provide the bank account along with the bank name and branch addresses of 21 concerns mentioned in the Annexure-A. Ans.: I will submit all the required details by 27.03.2015. Q.8. Kindly furnish the names, postal addresses and phone numbers of the directors /proprietors of the 21 concerns mentioned in the Annexure-A. Ans.: I will submit all the required details by 27.03.2015. Q.9. Please go through the Annexure-A in which total billing is shown as Rs. 1118848138/-. Please state where this amount has been transferred after bogus billing and how. Ans.: This amount has been transferred to the donors through Hawala Opeators . First I transferred this amount to various parties, who was raised bogus bill on my concerns by bank channel through layering. Then from these parties, I have go cash in return which is transferred to the donors in cash through Angarias/howala . The details of bogus bills raised by my concerns will be provided by 27.03.2015. Q.10. Kindly explain the modus operandi of your business in the case of SHG PH. Ans.: The donor will de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the survey and post survey enquiries, then the questions posed before us is, whether this belief harped by all the appellants was such a bonafide that could not be questioned in any circumstances. To our mind, it is a misplaced argument at the end of the appellants. It is to be appreciated that recipient came into existence in 1993, it might have been working on charitable objects and got approval for the purpose of recognition of Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation first time on 17.06.2010. There might be a good intention at the end of the recipient but it has detracted its objectives and indulged in fraudulent activities. The fraud of this magnitude cannot be done without an organised planning where involvements of alleged brokers have come. Thus operative force in the minds of all decision-maker in donors organisation/individual was acting with a fraudulent intent in giving donation through broker in this manner. The ld. CIT(Appeals) in the case of Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited has posed the following questions to the assessee:- (a) What was the purpose of this donation? (b) Whether such donation has been given to the School in the past or in the futur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of CIT vs.- Batanagar Education Research Trust reported in 129 taxmann.com 30, whose copy has been placed on the record by the ld. CIT(DR), has considered the identical material, which has been placed before us also. In the case of Batanagar Education Research Trust, the facts are that during the course of survey at the premises of SHG PH, and in post survey inquiry statement of Shri Ramendra Lahiri, Managing Trustee of the assessee, i.e. Batanagar Society was recorded. The Secretary, Smt. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar and Treasurer Smt. Moumita Raghavan of SHG PH have categorically deposed in their statements that source of income of SHG PH was the money received in the form of donations from Corporate Bodies as well as from individuals. The assessee Batanagar Society was selected by the brokers, who have arranged the donations to SHG PH as a conduit for receiving the donations from SHG PH. This donation was to be returned back to those Corporate Houses and individuals in cash after layering the transaction and the Batanagar Education Research Trust would also retain commission income for such an activity. On the basis of that, its registration was cancelled by the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s before us. 42. It is also pertinent to note that it is not a simple case of claiming deduction on fulfilment of conditions under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, rather it is a case where Revenue has disproved this claim and proved that, with a criminal mind all such donors have layered their transaction in such a manner which apparently appears to be genuine, but in reality not genuine. They took such a step to commit fraud, an economic offence against the economy of the country. 43. The bonafide of the assessees can be appreciated if they have demonstrated that they have given the donations in the past or subsequent periods to some Institution of national importance, such as Tata Research Centre, certain Hospitals, etc. but none of them has given such a donation except a small amount of few thousand in the case of Abhilasha Tradecom Pvt. Limited. The moment Assessing Officers have dispelled onus discharged by the assessee, then it was their duty to prove the genuineness of their claim with circumstantial evidence as pointed out by the ld. Commissioner in the case of Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited, i.e. what was the purpose of the donation; whether such donati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional ground of appeal taken by Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited (ITA No. 261/KOL/2020). The assessee has filed an application for permission to raise additional ground of appeal. Such permission was allowed to the assessee vide Interim order dated 20.07.2022, which reads as under:- 20.07.2022:- Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an application dated 20th July, 2022 pleading the rein that notice issued under section 143(2) dated 04.09.2014 for scrutinising the return of assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 is without jurisdiction. He submitted that Board has issued a Circular bearing No.1/2011 [F. No.187/12/2010- IT(AT)] dated 31 .01 .2011, whereby Board has assigned pecuniary jurisdictions to different Officers for passing the assessment orders. According to the ld. counsel for the assessee, if monetary limit of more than Rs. 30 lakhs exceeds in the declare d income, then jurisdiction to scrutinise the return as well as passing assessment order would be with Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, whereas in the present case, no tice under section 143(2 ) has been issued by an Assessing Officer i.e. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10 (3), Kolkata, Code No. WBG, Ward- 10(3). Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been issued by Dy. Commissioner/Asstt. Commissioner and, therefore, in the absence of such notice, no assessment ought to have been passed. For buttressing his contention, he put reliance upon the six ITAT decisions, namely- (i) Shri Sukumar Chandra Sahoo in ITA No. 2073/KOL/2016 dated 27.09.2017- C Bench; (ii) Proficient Commodities Pvt. Limited in ITA No. 1346/KOL/2016 dated 18.03.2020- A Bench; (iii) Anil Kumar Khetawat in ITA No. 1136/KOL/2019 dated 26.05.2022 C Bench; (iv) Shri Debabrata Kayal in ITA No. 6/KOL/2021 dated 11.02.2022 C Bench; (v) Shri Krishnendu Chowdhury in ITA No. 1153/KOL/2015 dated 18.11.2016 D Bench; (vi) Reliance is also placed on the decision of Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd. Reported in 330 ITR 491 holding that CBDT Instructions for completion of assessment are binding on the AO which was followed in ITAT, Kolkata B Bench in the case of Ajanta Financial Services Pvt. Limited in ITA No. 1426/KOL/2011. 47. In his next-fold of contention, he submitted that it is a jurisdictional issue and there cannot be any waiver on a jurisdictional aspect, even under section 292BB of the Income Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend his office or to produce, or cause to be produced, any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return; Provided that no notice under clause (ii) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished] . 50. Before construing the meaning of this clause, we would like to make reference to the CBDT s guidelines published in the Master-Guide to Income Tax Act by Taxman. On page 3.196, the publisher has published the process of selection of cases for scrutiny for Corporate Assessee in A.Y. 2006-07. This has been followed in Financial Year 2007-08, i.e. Assessment Year 2008-09 and in other years. For example, we are taking up these Instructions for A.Y. 2006-07, which read as under:- Proceedure for selection of cases for scrutinies- For Corporate assesses: Assessment Year 2006-07 1. In supersession of earlier Instruction on the above subject, the Board herby lays down the following procedure for section of returns/cases of Corporate Assessees for Scrutiny during the current financial year, l. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under section 10A and/or 10B with export turnover exceeding Rs. 10 crore. (p) All cases of contractors whose gross contractual receipts exceed Rs. 5 crore and net income declared is less than 5% of gross contractual receipts. 3. Where a case does not fall in the categories specified at para 2 above but the CCIT/DGIT (International Taxation)/ DGIT (Exemptions), of his own motion or on the matter having been brought to his notice by an authority below, is satisfied that the case needs to be taken up for scrutiny, the CCIT/DGIT (International Taxation)/DGIT (Exemptions), for reasons to be recorded in writing, may direct the Assessing Officer to take up the case for scrutiny. 4. The CCIT/DGIT (International Taxation)/DGIT (Exemptions), may issue suitable guidelines for reducing/increasing the number of cases selected under specific clauses of para 2, for proper management of the workload as well as to avoid large scale transfer of cases form one jurisdiction to another. 5. All returns filled in response to notice issued u/s 148 shall be selected for scrutiny. 6. In addition to above, selection of cases out of returns processed on AST will be made through a Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e professionals, it is to be assigned to particular authorities on the basis of monetary limit. It is a subsequent step and for this purpose, we take note of the CBDT Instruction No. 119, which reads as under:- CBDT Section 119 of the Income Tax Act-Instructions to subordinate authorities- Instructions regarding income limits f or assigning cases to Deputy Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners/ITOs. Instruction No. 1/2011 [F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] dated 31.01.2011. References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs /ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to a DC/AC who is located in a different station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the mat4ter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the abovementioned hardship. An increase in the monetary limits is also considered desirable in view of the increase in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when the present income limits were introduced. It has therefore, been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tead of ease of assessment on the basis of return of income filed by the assesses. In other words, it is mere allocation of work after selection of scrutiny. We would have made a reference for constitution of a Special Bench on this issue because it is difficult for us to concur with the views of the earlier Benches on this aspect. In none of the orders relied upon before us, this issue has been examined with this angle. It is pertinent to observe that it is a group of 13 appeals, wherein we have decided the main issue against the assessees. It will ultimately travel to the Hon ble High Courts in further appeal. Therefore, we do not deem it necessary to make a reference to the Special Bench and withholding the adjudication of one appeal, which is a lead appeal. The orders referred by the ld. Counsel for the assessee have not dealt with all these aspects. It is also pertinent to observe that on distribution of work amongst the ITOs, vis-a-vis Addl. Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner even no order for transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 is required to be passed. This is an exercise after the process of selection of the case for scrutiny. Once computer identifies a particular cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
