9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CASS issues. In any case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition on account of the issues selected under CASS. Therefore, in our considered view, the said order of the Tribunal covers the common solitary preliminary issue raised before us in all the ten appeals. Accordingly, the preliminary issue raised by the assessee in all these ten appeals is allowed. - 1518/PUN/2018, 1521/PUN/2018, 1523/PUN/2018, 1528/PUN/2018, 1529/PUN/2018, 1530/PUN/2018, 1532/PUN/2018, 1533/PUN/2018, 1534/PUN/2018, 1535/PUN/2018 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2019 - SHRI D. KAR UNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM For the Appellant : Shri Sunil Ganoo For the Respondent : Shri M. K. Verma ORDER PER BENCH : There are ten appeals under consideration. All these appeals share the common grounds of appeal for the assessment year 2014-15. Since all the ten appeals linked by common issues, common arguments by common counsel and common binding judgements, therefore, these appeals can be heard together and adjudicated by this composite order. 2. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessees submitted that this bunch of appeals can be disposed of on technical issue/prelimina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformation on the cash deposits in the savings bank account. It is also an undisputed fact that the AO did not obtain the written approval of the concerned Commissioner before extending the scope of scrutiny to the interest disallowed and denial of claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act. Further, it is on record that the Board did not permit the Assessing Officers to extend the scope of scrutiny to the issues other than the ones which are authorised the Board in this regard under CASS. It is also a fact that judgment cited by the Ld. DR for the Revenue in the case of Banque Nationale De Paris Vs. CIT 237 ITR 518 (Bom.) was not issued in connection with the jurisdiction of the AO in matters relating to extension of areas of scrutiny to the ones than the authorised ones by the Board. In this connection, we perused the CBDT Instruction No.7/2014, dated 26-09-2014 and find it relevant to extract the relevant lines. The same reads as under : 4. In case, during the course of assessment proceedings, it is found that there is potential escapement of income exceeding ₹ 10 lakhs (for non-metro charges, the monetary limit shall be ₹ 5 lakhs) on any other issue(s) apart from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rutiny. It was specifically asked whether the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. In reply, the Central Public Information Officer stated that the case of assessee was not selected for scrutiny under CASS. Further, the assessee has asked as to why its case was selected for scrutiny since it was covered by relaxed scrutiny norms. In answer, it was pointed out that the case was selected for scrutiny, in view of guidelines for selection of scrutiny issue during financial year 2010-11; copies of RTI application and the reply are placed at pages 20 to 22 of the Paper Book. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further referred to the criteria of guidelines for income-tax scrutiny, copy of which is placed at page 23 and 24 of the Paper Book and reiterated that in the case of assessee, Survey was carried out and criteria was fixed for not picking up the case under scrutiny and the assessee clearly fulfils the same. He further pointed out that in case the criteria is not met with, then as per clause (g), the Assessing Officer can select any return for scrutiny after recording reasons and after obtaining the approval of CCIT/DGIT. In this regard, he pointed ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad debts claimed by the assessee were disallowed by the Assessing Officer. He then went into merits of the case. It was also stressed by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue that the declared income in the hands of assessee means the book profit. 12. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder pointed out that in the case of assessee, he declared additional income during the course of Survey. He further pointed out that the details of expenses were compared by the Assessing Officer. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The preliminary issue raised in the present appeal by way of ground of appeal No.5 is against the validity of assessment made in the hands of assessee. The assessee claims that the case of assessee was not selected for scrutiny under CASS but was selected manually. For selection of any return for scrutiny manually by the Assessing Officer, the requirement of guidelines issued for this purpose for relevant assessment year was that the same should be after obtaining approval of the CCIT / DGIT. Since no such approval was received from the CCIT / DGIT, the Assessing Officer had no jurisd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question asked was with regard to selection of scrutiny and other relevant information relating to assessment year 2008-09. The specific question asked by the assessee was whether its case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and in case it was not selected under CASS and why the same was picked up for scrutiny. The assessee also asked that under which norms the case was selected for scrutiny and whether relaxation in selection of cases in which survey action was carried out on fulfilling the criteria was available in the said norms or not. In reply, it was stated that the guidelines / instructions were followed and since the guidelines were confidential in nature, the copy of same could not be provided. In reply to the next question whether the case was selected under CASS, the categorical answer was No . The said RTI reply further stated that the case was selected for scrutiny in view of the guidelines contained in F.No.225/93/2009/ITA.II. 15. The said guidelines for selection of scrutiny were published and it was pointed out that the said guidelines were only for the use of Officers of Income Tax Department and the same could not be disclosed even under the RTI Act, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT was obtained to select the case manually for scrutiny for assessment year 2008-09. In the above circumstances, where the order has been passed against the norms laid down by the CBDT vide its guidelines which were binding upon the Assessing Officer, then the order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law. The instructions issued by the CBDT are to be strictly followed by the authorities i.e. Assessing Officer and in the absence of the same, the assessment order passed in the case is annulled. Such is the proposition laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CIT Vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia (supra) and the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Best Plastics (P) Ltd. (supra). In view thereof, we hold that where the Assessing Officer has failed to follow the guidelines issued for selecting the cases for scrutiny and in the facts of the present case, where the case was selected manually for scrutiny, but no previous approval of CCIT was obtained, then the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to carry out the scrutiny assessment in the present case and accordingly, assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law. Hence, we hold so. Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
