2022 (5) TMI 1228 - AT - Income Tax

Legality of the assessment proceedings - assessee was not intimated about the notice issued for selection of scrutiny as to whether the case of the assessee falls under limited scrutiny or complete scrutiny and the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act is defective as observed by ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has himself mentioned in the impugned order that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is defective is devoid of any merit because in para 9.4 of the impugned order ld. CIT(A) has given his finding and before giving his finding he has mentioned the issue as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was defective. Nowhere ld. CIT(A) has stated that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was defective. Limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny - We find that the ld. AO has specifically mentioned that the case of the assessee has been selected for complete scrutiny for two reasons i.e. mismatch in sales turnover reported in audit report and second is cash deposit in saving bank account is more than the turnover. Though it gives an impression that the assessee s case has been selected for limited scrutiny specifically for two reasons but due to lack of any other contrary material we are inclined to find that the case of the assessee has been selected for complete scrutiny. Had the case been selected for limited scrutiny then while converting the same into complete scrutiny an approval is required. Ample opportunities were provided to the assessee but there was no compliance. A perusal of the assessment order shows that ld. AO confined his examination only to the extent of gross turnover and profit disclosed by the assessee. No other issue has been taken up nor any addition has been made which shows that ld. AO has not exercised his jurisdiction beyond the two reasons for which scrutiny notice was issued. Now, this being the case then there hardly remains any grievance of the assessee as to whether the scrutiny was complete or limited, and the fact remains undisputed that a valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 02.09.2014 was issued and duly served upon the assessee and since the additions made in the assessment order (which have not been challenged by the assessee) either before the first appellate authority nor before this Tribunal, there remains no reason for the assessee raising grievance about the limited/complete scrutiny. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case find no reason to interfere into the finding of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(C) - Since the assessee did not comply to the summon issued u/s 131(1) of the Act dated 05.12.2016 requiring his personal appearance on 08.12.2016 along with certain details and documents the ld. AO made the reference to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-39 for initiation of the penalty - HELD THAT - The assessee has not denied the fact that summon u/s 131(1) of the Act dated 05.12.2016 was issued and he did not appear on the date of hearing i.e. on 08.12.2016 and did not furnish any application stating any reasonable cause for not appearing on the given date nor requested any adjournment. Thus, there is a clear violation of provision of Section 131 of the Act and penalty u/s 272A(1)(C) of the Act is attracted. Further ld. AO has rightly acted as per the provision of sub-Section 3 of Section 272A of the Act by making a reference to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for initiation of penalty and the same was levied at Rs. 10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(C) of the Act. The ground of the assessee that notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act should be under the signature of the ld. AO and not Joint Commissioner of Income Tax has no merit because the issue before us is the penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(C) of the Act. Therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and the same is confirmed. Thus, the assessee s appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Legitimacy of the scrutiny process (limited vs. complete scrutiny).
3. Validity of the demand notice and penalty order issued under Section 156 and Section 272A(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was defective and did not comply with the CBDT's instructions, rendering the assessment invalid. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear despite multiple hearing opportunities and adjudicated the issue based on available records. The CIT(A) addressed this concern by stating that the notice was system-generated under CASS and not manually created by the AO. The CIT(A) found no specific defect pointed out by the assessee and concluded that the notice was valid. The Tribunal concurred with this finding, emphasizing that the notice was correctly issued and served, thus dismissing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

2. Legitimacy of the Scrutiny Process (Limited vs. Complete Scrutiny):
The assessee argued that the scrutiny was not properly categorized as either limited or complete, and that the AO did not obtain written approval from the Principal CIT for complete scrutiny. The CIT(A) clarified that the case was selected for complete scrutiny by CASS, and thus, no additional approval was required. The Tribunal supported this conclusion, noting that the AO confined his examination to the specified reasons for scrutiny (mismatch in sales turnover and cash deposits exceeding turnover). The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction, thereby affirming the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissing the appeal on this issue.

3. Validity of the Demand Notice and Penalty Order Issued Under Section 156 and Section 272A(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee challenged the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed under Section 272A(1)(C) for non-compliance with summons issued under Section 131(1). The assessee contended that the demand notice under Section 156 should have been issued by the AO and not by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not deny the non-compliance with the summons and found that the AO correctly referred the matter to the Joint Commissioner for penalty initiation. The Tribunal held that the issue at hand was the penalty under Section 272A(1)(C), not the procedural aspects of the demand notice, and found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision, thereby dismissing the appeal on this ground.

Conclusion:
Both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2), confirmed the legitimacy of the complete scrutiny process, and validated the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(C). The Tribunal found no merit in the procedural objections raised by the assessee and affirmed the decisions of the lower authorities.