9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o appreciate the facts in a simplified manner, we deem it appropriate to take note of the facts in a seriatim from each appeal. 2. ITA No. 261/KOL/2020 (Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited) The assessee is impugning the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 29.11.2019 passed in A.Y. 2013-14, which has arisen against the assessment order dated 30.03.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has taken eleven grounds of appeal. However, on perusal of the grounds, it revealed to us that basically three-folds of grievance are being raised by the assessee, namely- (a) in Grounds No. 2 to 6, the assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer for not allowing the deduction of Rs. 87,50,000/- claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (b) In Grounds No. 7 & 8, the assessee has submitted 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated before the Tribunal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has concurred with the ld. Assessing Officer. 3. ITA Nos. 107/KOL/2020 & 108/KOL/2020 (REACHASIA) The present two appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the separate orders of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 02.12.2019 passed on the appeals of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. 3.1. The assessee has taken two grounds of appeal in A.Y. 2013-14 and three grounds of appeal in A.Y. 2014-15. 3.2. Ground No. 1 in A.Y. 2013-14 is similar with Ground No. 1 in A.Y. 2014-15. In this ground of appeal, the assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowances of deduction amounting to Rs. 35,00,000/- and Rs. 17,50,000/-, which were claimed by the assessee under section 35(1)(ii) for grant of donation to SHG&PH i.e. School of Human Genetics and Population Health. 3.3. Ground No. 2 is common with Ground No. 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 Mait ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,50,00,000/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed this deduction. He has made a similar discussion as made in the earlier two appeals of the Group. He has made reference to the statements, for appreciating the affairs of SHG&PH, recorded during post-survey enquiry in their cases. He has made reference as to how the donors went to the Settlement Commission and admitted the fact that they have provided only accommodation entries on commission based. All these materials were confronted to the assessee. 5. ITA No. 23/KOL/2020 M/s. Coalsale Co. The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 24.12.2019 passed for A.Y. 2015-16. 5.1. The assessee has raised five grounds of appeal, but its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 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) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure Harbal Healthcare Bio-Harbal Research Foundation (in short 'HHBRF') and it claimed weighted deduction of Rs. 5,25,000/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee with regard to the material unearthed during the course of search by the Investigation Wing in the case of recipient of the donation, but the assessee failed to give any plausible reply to rebut such donation except by submitting that it has given donation under a bonafide belief. Accordingly ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee vide assessment order dated 25.10.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 7. ITA No. 133/KOL/2021 The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 31.03.2021 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 7.1. In 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bogus donation. Contrary to this claim, the assessee was unable to submit any evidence except pleading bonafide donation. The ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee by passing an assessment order on 02.03.2016 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 9. ITA Nos. 2316 & 2317/KOL/2019 The present two appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against separate orders of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 28.08.2019 passed in A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. 9.1. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 5,25,000/- in A.Y. 2013-14 and Rs. 5,25,000/- in A.Y. 2014-15. 9.2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee his filed its return of income on 20.12.2013 and 28.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 13,08,950/- and Rs. 13,74,490/- respectively in A.Ys. 2013-14 and 201415. 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. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 35,00,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) on a donation of Rs. 20,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The ld. Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with regard to the material unearthed during the course of search/survey in the case of recipient of the donations. He confronted the assessee as to how this recipient has admitted before the Settlement Commission that it has provided accommodation entries after receipt of commissions. The assessee was unable to submit any evidence in support of its claim except pleading bonafide belief of its donation. It was submitted by the assessee that since recipient was enjoying the status of a Research 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llege has to be 'approved' for such purposes by prescribed authority. Therefore, if a research institute is approved and notified by the prescribed authorities under the Rules of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and the provision of this Act, then the donors will be entitled for a deduction equivalent to 175% of donation given by them. Therefore, as far as scope of this Section or meaning/instruction of the language employed in this section is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. In other words, interpretation of the meaning of section is not involved, which requires reference to any judgment from the authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble High Courts as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court. 16. The dispute relates to the factum of giving donations to a genuine institution for claiming 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 payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be to create new disabilities or obligations, or to impose new duties in respect of transactions are not accomplished. The ld. Counsel for the assessees thereafter made reference to a series of decisions, where ITAT has allowed such a deduction to the assesses. He pointed out that some of the decisions in Kolkata have been upheld upto the Hon'ble High Court also. He pointed out that across India, such deductions have been allowed to the assessees. 19. All the ld. Counsels have been by and large took the same line of argument. They only placed on record different ITAT orders in their paper book, wherein identical issues were involved. 20. Originally Shri Amal Kamat, ld. CIT(DR) appeared in the case of Tarasafe International Private Limited assisted with Smt. Ranu Biswas, 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elled the registration as well as the finding recorded by the Tribunal. Both these findings are based upon the material discovered during the survey upon SHG&PH and, therefore, in view of this latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he emphasized all other orders of the ITAT and the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court are not to be followed. 22. Since this decision was supplied by the Revenue after conclusion of the arguments, therefore, we re-fixed the hearing and confronted the assessee with this latest position of law. However, Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata - vs.- Sanskriti Sagar. In this decision, the Hon'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 Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Research Organization Renewal till 31.03.2016 vide Communication No. 14/473/2007-TU-V(for 01.04.10 to 31.03.13) For 01.04.08 to 31.03.10) 01.04.2013 01.04.2013 17.06.2010 Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology Gazette Notification u/s 35(1)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Notification No. 4/2010 28.01.2010 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 welfare, the society had trained teachers an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 2318 of 2017 since in the first appeal tax effect was less, therefore, it was not challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court. However, the second order in the case of Principal CIT-3 -vs.- M/s. Thakkar Govindbhai Ganpatlal HUF was challenged before the Hon'ble Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 mechanism to check the veracity, can be doubted, more particularly, when certificate to obtain donation has * been cancelled after two years of the payment of donation. It is fact which has been unearthed subsequent to the donations. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance on this issue. We allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en developed everywhere including ITAT, Kolkata. The order of the ITAT, Kolkata got the approval of the Hon'ble High Court, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pr. CIT -vs.- Mackaw Corporation (2022) 8 TMI 1750, ITA 42 of 2020, G.A. No. 2 of 2019, Old G.A. No. 1477 of 2019. 31. The ld. Counsels have emphasized that under identical circumstances, deductions have been allowed by the ITAT and the order of ITAT has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Courts. Therefore, these appeals are to be allowed and deductions be granted to the appellants. 32. With respect to all the case laws including our own order, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, we are of the view that all the decisions are based on the set of facts in those cases. In these cases, the Department did not file paper book, did not bring it to the notice of the ITAT about the nature and quantum of the material discovered during the course of survey exhibiting as to how a modus operandi in an organized manner was adopted by the recipients with the help of brokers to fraud the nation. There was no question of law involved in the factual finding given by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... My main source of income is from brokerage by raising bogus bills for various beneficiaries/parties. Q. 13. How do you know the Trust called "School of Human Genetics & Population Health (SHGPH)? Ans.: Initially, I came with the contact of Smt. Moumita Raghavan, President and Smt. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar, Secretary of School of Human Genetics & Population Health through a market broker named Shri Sailesh Gupta, residing at howrah who approached me for bogus billing. After that, I have direct contact with Smt. Moumita Raghavan & Smt. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar of SHGPH regularly and raise bogus bills for SHGPH over the years as per their directions. I shall furnish the details of bogus billing on 10.03.2015. Q. 6: Please explain the nature of business done by you in detail. Ans.: I am an accommodation entry operator and I am engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus share capital/unsecured loans/bogus bills etc. to various beneficiaries/parties through various 'jama-kharchi'/paper companies/proprietorship concerns controlled by me in lieu commission. Q. 7. Kindly go through the Annexure-A which is submitted by you in the case of SHG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice of the assessees about the outcome of the survey and how these donations are to be treated as bogus. 37. The stand of all these appellants right from the ld. Assessing Officer upto the Tribunal is that since Institution was approved by the Competent Authority to receive donation. This approval was intact when they have made the donation. Therefore, under bonafide belief, they have given the donations and on the basis of post donation, material collected by the Revenue should not be used against them for doubting the genuineness of the donation. The scheme of the Income Tax Act provides that a claim made by an assessee has to be proved by the assessee. Thus the first onus is upon the assessee about the claim made by him. This onus was discharged by the assessee by pointing out that Institution to whom donations were given. They are approved by the Income Tax Authority and, therefore, their claim is to be allowed. However, if the first onus discharged by the assessee was dispelled by the ld. Assessing Officer by confronting them with the material recovered during the survey and post survey enquiries, then the questions posed before us is, whether this belief harped by all the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... organisation in the next year. Therefore, if we weigh the simple plea of the appellants about their bonafide belief for giving such donations, vis-a-vis huge materials collected by the Revenue demonstrating the fact how such a belief is misplaced, then, the scale would tilt in favour of the revenue. It is to be appreciated that roughly 720 entities including individuals available in a part-list on pages No. 72 to 81 of the paper book compiled by the Revenue would have not formed a bonafide belief about giving donation to one entity across India in Kolkata. This material speaks in itself that under a criminal conspiracy, these donations have been arranged by the brokers across India for defrauding the nation. We do not find any credence in the belief of bonafide raised by the appellants. 39. We are aware of the facts that a large number of orders have been passed in favour of the assessee by ITAT and some of those were upheld by Hon'ble High Courts also. We have extracted one of the orders from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Batanagar Education & Research Trust reported in 129 taxmann.com 30, whose copy has been placed on the record b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41. We find that in this case, the assesese was recipient of a small donation of Rs. 85,000/- from Herbicure and on the basis of receipt of this donation, its registration was sought to be cancelled. The Hon'ble High Court has propounded that the decision in the case of Batanagar Education & Research Trust is not applicable on the facts of that case because Sanskriti Sagar has neither given any donation to this Trust and claimed deduction under section 35(1)(ii) nor it has returned the money in cash out of a small donation received by it from Herbicure, a similar Trust to SHG&PH. Hon'ble High Court has held that Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed by the ld. Commissioner vide which registration was cancelled. In our opinion, it is purely a fact-based decision without laying down any particular proposition of law, rather an inference could be drawn from it that if there is no element of fraud committed by an assessee, then such an assessee does not deserve to be punished. This case cannot buttress any of the contentions of the appellants before us. 42. It is also pertinent to note that it is not a simple case of claiming deduction on fulfilment of conditions under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the 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. This finding is subject to our finding on other preliminary issues in the case of Abhilasha Tradecom Pvt. Limited i.e. ITA Nos. 132 & 133/KOL/2021. In ITA Nos. 132 & 133/KOL/2021, assessee has challenged the reopening of the assessment. We will be deciding this issue in the following part of the judgment. Similarly in the case of Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited, i.e. ITA No. 261/KOL/2020, the assessee has taken an additional ground of appeal, which we are taking up separately in the following part. 45. First we take the additional ground of appeal taken by Tarasafe International Pvt. Limited (ITA No. 261/KOL/2020). The assessee has filed an application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 143(2) as well as passing the assessment order. We adjourn the hearing to 2nd of August, 2022 treated as part-heard. Copy of this order-sheet be supplied to both the parties for compliance. Sd/- Sd/- Manish Borad & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Act. For this purpose he made reference to the order of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 1768 & 1769/KOL/2006. In his written submission, ld. Counsel for the assessee made reference on a number of decisions in support of his submissions. 48. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, contended that for selection of a case for scrutinizing the return, no discretion is vested in any Officer. The selection is being made after 2006 under Computer Assisted Scrutiny System (i.e. CASS). CBDT used to lay down the guidelines from time to time pointing out which type of cases are to be taken up c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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.e. 2005-06. 2. The following categories of cases shall be compulsorily scrutinized:- (a) All assessments pertaining to Search & Seizure cases (b) All assessments pertaining to Surveys conducted u/s 133A. (c) * All returns where deduction claimed under Chapter VIA is Rs. 25 lakh or above in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Pune, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Ahmedabad, and Rs. 10 lakh or above in other places. (d) * (i) All returns where refund claimed is Rs. 50 lakh or above in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Pune, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Ahmedabad, and Rs. 20 lakh or above in oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Computer Assisted Scrutiny (CASS). The selection will be made centrally at RCCs on the basis of selection criteria determined by the Board. Separate instructions in this regard will be issued by the DIT (Systems).Instruction, dated 25.10.2005". 51. Let's revert back to the section itself. A bare perusal of this section would indicate that it has basically two components- (a) if the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income, then he would serve a notice upon the assessee for directing him to produce the requisite details, on which he wish to rely. (b) The other aspect is such a no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... using 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 decided to increase the monetary limits as under:- Income declared (Mofussil areas) Income declared (Metro cities) Corporate returns Upto Rs. 20 lacs Above Rs. 20 lacs Upto Rs. 30 lacs Above Rs. 30 lakhs NonCorporate returns Upto Rs. 15 lacs Above Rs. 15 lacs Upto Rs. 20 lacs Above Rs. 20 lakhs Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1.4.2011". 53. As far as the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is concerned that a jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fer 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 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. 55. ITA Nos. 132 & 133/KOL/2021: The first ground of appeal in both the years is common. In this ground in both the years, the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
