9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Dhariwal, CIT.DR ORDER PER, DR. M. L. MEENA, AM: The captioned appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Pr. CIT-1, Jalandhar, dated 20.02.2020. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order passed by the Hon ble Pr. CIT dated 20.02.2020 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon ble Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 263 and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 263 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon ble Pr. CIT has wrongly assumed jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited scrutiny with issues identified for examination are that 1) Contract Receipt/Fees mismatch. 2) Sales Turnover Mismatch and 3) Tax Credit Mismatch. The statutory notice dated 19.09.2016, issued under section 143(2) (copy placed on record). The Assessing Officer (in short The AO ) while working within the domain of limited scrutiny, as per the binding CBDT instruction No.5/2016 dated 14.07.2016 governing limited scrutiny, confined himself to examine the issues as identified above, and therefore, required the assessee to part with the relevant information, explaining the tree point inclusive of mismatch as above. The AO, being fully satisfied, after examining the information/material made available during assessment proceedings, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he receipts shown in ITR 4/5/5, Tax credit claimed in ITR is less then tax credit available in 26AS and Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit report and ITR . However, as per the directions contained in the C8DT, New Delhi instruction No.20/2015 dated 29.12.2015 regarding Scrutiny cases selected through CASS and conversion of Limited Scrutiny cases into complete scrutiny cases para 3 (d) which is reproduced as under and the partial modification in the Instructions vide No.5/2016 dated 14.07.2016, the case was liable to be converted into Complete Scrutiny as per laid down procedures and the AO should have sought approval from the Pr.CIT in writing to convert the case from Limited Scrutiny to complete scrutiny. 3d. During the Course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and committed no error in accepting the income as returned, after examination and verification of the points, identified for limited scrutiny. The claim of the medicine expenses, which is now being seen with incongruity, was never being the subject matter of limited scrutiny and therefore, no failure can be attributed to the Assessing Officer, for not having travelled beyond the issues of limited scrutiny, to examine the allowability of the said expenses. Had it been a matter of complete scrutiny, in that event, there could be a probability to take recourse to the action, now proposed. He further submitted that in view of these fact and circumstances, since there was no failure on the part of the AO, by not jumping into examining the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me to the conclusion of potential escapement the Ld. Pr. Cannot hold the order to be erroneous on the ground that AO ought to have reached to such conclusion. The order u/s 263 was accordingly quashed. III. Storewell Construction Engineers vs. Pr. CIT [ITAT Pune]: In this case the revisionary jurisdiction had been invoked by the Pr. CIT to look into the issues which were not within the purview of limited scrutiny. In view of the circular issued by CBDT and judicial decisions, the order u/s 263 was quashed. IV. Akash Ganga Promotors Developers vs. Pr. CIT [ITAT Cuttack]: It was held that where the case was selected for scrutiny for limited scrutiny and there was no allegation by the ld. Pr. CIT that the AO has not made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Admittedly the present case before us is a case of Limited scrutiny selected for particular points reproduced hereinabove confined to 4 issues. The issue for which the PCIT issued the show cause notice was entirely different than the four issues examined under limited scrutiny by the assessing officer. The Board in its circular mentioned the procedure for converting the limited scrutiny case into full-fledged scrutiny. The said circular was reproduced by the PCIT in the impugned order before us. From the perusal of the above said circular, it is abundantly clear that the conditions, which are sine qua non were non-existence. Therefore, the assessing officer did not have to convert or make a request for a limited scrutiny case to fullfle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
