TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year and that the assessee made declaration of Rs. 1.24 crore on account of undisclosed expenses. We find that such issue was not the subject matter of scrutiny, hence, the Assessing Officer was not entitled to raise such question. We find that in Balvinder Kumar [ 2021 (3) TMI 649 - ITAT DELHI ] has held that in case of limited scrutiny, AO could not go beyond reason for which matter was selected for limited scrutiny thus, it would not be open to Principal Commissioner to pass revisionary order u/s 263 on other aspects and remit matter to AO for fresh assessment. The Supreme Court in celebrated/ leading case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [ 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT ] held that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo-motu is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent - if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue - recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. Thus the twin condition as required to revise the assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act for the same year were framed, wherein due inquiry was made. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Pr. CIT has grievously erred in setting aside the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act without pointing out as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8. It is therefore prayed that the above proposed proceedings may please be revoked as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 9. Appellant craves liberty to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a builder and developer, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 04/11/2017 declaring income of Rs. 16,95,700/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposits during the year. The Assessing Officer in para 2 of assessment order recorded that the assessee was asked to furnish specific details vide notice dated 07/11/2019. In response to such notice, the assessee furnished details and information called for. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order with the direction to the Assessing Officer to pass the assessment order de novo after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposits during demonetization period. The Assessing Officer during assessment, thoroughly examined the issue on limited scrutiny by issuing show cause notice dated 07/11/2019 wherein the assessee was asked to furnish bank book, bank account and reconciliation of statement alongwith other various details. The assessee in response to such show cause notices, filed its reply on ITBA portal on 12/12/2019. The assessee furnished complete details of bank accounts held by the assessee, copy of bank statement and reconciliation thereof and substantiated the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer also required certain ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mited scrutiny, thus, it would not be open for Pr. CIT to pass revisionary order under Section 263 on other aspects and remit the matter to Assessing Officer for fresh assessment order. To support his view, the ld. AR relied upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in Balvinder Kumar Vs Pr. CIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 83 (Delhi Trib). On similar view, the ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the following decisions: (1) Chaitanya Bansibhai Nagori Vs PCIT-4 ITA No. 377/Ahd/2020 (ITAT Ahd) (2) Rakesh Kumar Vs CIT, Karnal ITA No. 6187/Del/2015 (ITAT New Delhi) (3) Spotlight Vanijya Ltd. Vs PCIT-2, Kolkata ITA No. 353/Kol/2020 (ITAT, Kolkata) (4) Raj Paul Bhardwaj Vs Pr.CIT, Patiala ITA No. 463/Chd/2019 (ITAT, Chandigarh) (5) M/s Aggarwal Promoters Vs Pr. CIT-2, Chandigarh ITA No. 1708/Chd/2017 (ITAT, Chandigarh) (6) CIT Vs S.K. Srigiri Bros. (2008) 171 Taxman 264 (Kar) (7) Trividh Corporation Vs Pr. CIT, Surat ITA No. 86/Srt/2020 (ITAT Surat) (8) M/s Deccan Tobacco Company Vs Pr. CIT (Central) Visakhapatnam (ITAT, Visakhapatnam) (9) Maruti Construction C. Vs PCIT, ITA No. 60/Rjt/2022 (ITAT Rajkot) (10) Smt. Rekha Shekhawat Vs Pr. CIT ITA No. 7/JP/2021 (ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y supports the order of ld. Pr. CIT. 12. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as well the order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT under Section 263 of the Act which is impugned before us. We find that the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. We further find that for limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer issued necessary questionnaire about seeking details of bank accounts and other related information and evidences. The assessee in its reply, furnished such details of bank statement and other information. The Assessing Officer after taking such reply, completed the assessment on 18/12/2019 without any variation. The ld. Pr. CIT in its show cause notice, identified the issue which was not the subject matter of limited scrutiny. In the show cause notice, the ld. Pr. CIT raised the issue that survey action was conducted on the assessee firm in relevant financial year and that the assessee made declaration of Rs. 1.24 crore on account of undisclosed expenses. We find that such issue was not the subject matter of scrutiny, hence, the Assessing Officer was not entitled to raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
