9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Pr. CIT has erred in violating the principles of natural justice by not the mentioning the grounds for initiating action u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the show cause notice issued. As such the order passed u/s 263 is void ab-initio. The action of the ld. CIT was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, that the order u/s 263 is merely 'change of opinion'. The order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act passed by the ld. AO does not in any way represent erroneous order. The action of the ld. Pr. CIT was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Pr. CIT has grievously erred in assuming that the assessing officer had not verified adjustment of the income declared during survey against current year losses and brought forward losses and not made proper inquiry on finalized the order of assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act is contrary to the fact of the case. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the entire proceedings are bad in law and invalid as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 175/- and 76,28,967/- respectively. The income declared during the survey was also charged to tax at normal rate instead of charging at special rate at 60% as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act which is in violation of Section 68 to 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer was required to tax the disclosed income under Section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer without proper verification passed the assessment order, therefore, the assessment order is not only erroneous but detrimental to the interests of revenue and needs revision under Section 263 of the Act. 4. The assessee contested the show cause by filing reply on ITBA portal on 26/03/2022. The ld. Pr. CIT has not discussed/referred the contents of reply rather made it as Annexure of his order. The ld. Pr. CIT held that the declaration of Rs. 1.24 crore which was on account of unexplained expenditure was covered under Section 69 and required to be taxed under Section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not considered these vital aspects, therefore, the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial (wrongly mentioned pre-judice ) to the interests of revenue. The ld. Pr.& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted to "limited scrutiny" issues. The cases shall be concluded expeditiously in a limited number of hearings. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment in accordance with CBDT Circular and the assessment order is not at all erroneous. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that in a series of decisions, the Tribunal held that when case is picked up for limited scrutiny for depositing in bank account during demonetization period, the Assessing Officer examined the cash purchases and sales and come to a conclusion that the purchases and sales were inflated and drew an adverse inference and the ld. Pr. CIT of the view that the addition should have been only on purchase and sales proved by the assessee and not by ad hoc basis. The law is well settled that power of Section 263 cannot be exercised to substitute the view of ld. Pr. CIT with a view of Assessing Officer when the view taken by Assessing Officer was of possible view as has been held in Ms. Vimala Devi A. Kanunga Vs PCIT ITA No. 308/Bang/2022 order dated 30/08/2022. 7. The ld. AR further submits that in a limited scrutiny case, the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of aforesaid submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on such limited scrutiny, the ld. Pr. CIT has not disputed such issue which was the subject matter of limited scrutiny now it is not open for ld. Pr. CIT to pass a revisionary order and to direct the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order. Even on merit, the assessee order is not erroneous, therefore, revision order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT is not justified and liable to be quashed. 11. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. Pr. CIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the ld. Pr. CIT passed a detailed and reasoned order. The Assessing Officer has not made necessary enquiry which ought to have been made by him. The Assessing Officer were required to convert the limited scrutiny into a complete scrutiny case, thus, the assessment order is passed without proper application of mind. So far as the reference of CBDT Circular No. 20/2015, the ld. CIT-DR submits that this Circular is issued for specific years and on issuance of subsequent Circulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
