9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0) TMI 1495 - ITAT PUNE] and M/S R. AND H. PROPERTY DEVELOPER, PVT. LTD [ 2019 (7) TMI 1534 - ITAT MUMBAI] When the assessing officer is bound to follow the CBDT instructions and while following such instructions and after verification of the material furnished by the assessee on the aspect covered by the limited scrutiny, is not open for the Ld. PCIT to say that not adverting to the other aspects of the competition would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. With this view of the matter we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. We accordingly quash the same. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessment order was found to be erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, inasmuch as the computation shown by the assessee was accepted by the learned Assessing Officer without seeking any details regarding the working of indexed cost of acquisition at ₹ 4,92,06,793/-. Ld. PCIT further stated that the ownership over 2/3rd of the property was acquired by the assessee on 21.11.2012, but while indexing the cost of acquisition, the base year was taken as F.Y. 2007 - 08, and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of indexation from F.Y. 2007 - 08 to the year till he became the owner. According to the Ld. PCIT two different amounts were claimed in the same year, but the AO did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iding the issue relating to the indexation of the cost of acquisition has to be computed. He further submitted that the ambit of the assessment for limited scrutiny under CASS was admittedly in relation to the verification of "increase in capital" in response to which the assessee had furnished documents regarding transactions in the property to show the increase in capital, Learned Assessing Officer could not have travelled beyond inquiry into the increase in capital in view of the CBDT instruction No. 7/2014, 20/2015 and 5/2016 and also the CBDT letter dated 13 No. 2017, and thus, computation of capital gains was beyond the purview of the assessment and, therefore, Ld. PCIT could not have at all entered into the field of computation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder CASS are displayed to the Assessing Officer in AST application and notice u/s 143(2), after generation from AST, is issued to the taxpayer with the remark ".Selected under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS)". The functionality in AST is being modified suitably to flag the reasons for scrutiny selection in AIR/CIB/26AS cases. This functionality is expected to be operationalized by 15th October, 2014. Further, the Assessing Officer while issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act which is enclosed with the first questionnaire would proceed to verifyonly the specific aspects requiring examination/verification. In such cases, all efforts would be made to ensure that assessment proceedings are completed expeditiously in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiously intimate the taxpayer concerned regarding conducting 'Complete Scrutiny' in such cases." CBDT Letter dated 30.11.2017 J Instances have come to notice of CBDT where some Assessing Officers are travelling beyond their jurisdiction while making assessments in Limited scrutiny cases by initiating inquiries on new issues without complying with mandatory requirements of the relevant CBDT Instructions dated 26-9-2014, 29-12-2015 and 14-7-2016. These instances have been viewed very seriously by the CBDT and in one case the Central Inspection Team of the CBDT was tasked with examination of assessment records on receipt ofa I lee at ions of several irregularities.Amongst other irregularities, it was found that no reasons had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... look into any other aspect other than the aspect for which it is picked up. Hence, the Assessing Officer has not formed any opinion in respect of computation of book profits in the hands of assessee. Once, no such opinion has been formed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner has erred in holding the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in this regard. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of the Commissioner. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act is invalid and the same is quashed for both the assessment years." In M/s R.H. Property vs. PCIT, ITA No. 1906/Mum/2019 it was held that,- "As a matter of fact, what cannot be done dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
