9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under section 80IB(10) of the Act since 2008-09. There has been no dispute with respect to the satisfaction of condition relevant to that section. Therefore, this issue was also examined by the learned AO during the assessment proceedings. The issue remains that the PCIT while passing the order has stated that assessee did not comply with date of hearing on 20th February, 2020 and therefore, order was passed without considering the explanation of the assessee. We find that assessee has sent email on 19th March, 2020 explaining the reasons that on account of provision of Section 263 cannot be exercised for the impugned assessment year. However, this explanation was not considered by the learned PCIT though order u/s 263 was passed on 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. This appeal is filed by M/s S.K. Ventures (the assessee/ appellant) against the order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Thane [the learned CIT(A)] dated 24th March, 2020, wherein it has been held that assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the income-tax Act dated 27.12.2017 passed by the income-tax Officer, ward 2(4), Kalyan (the learned Assessing Officer) for Assessment Year 2015-16 is erroneous so far as, prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to call for requisite details, carried out verification and modify the order. The assessee is aggrieved and has preferred the following two grounds of appeal: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on 01.04.2013, assessee took opening work in progress as Rs. nil and closing stock of ₹ 32,667/- for Assessment Year 2014-15. Therefore, there is a difference of ₹ 83,63,359/- suppressing the work in progress for Assessment Year 2015-16 therefore, the learned PCIT was of the view that the learned assessing Officer did not confront the assessee with above discrepancy but overlooked it . b. It was further observed by him that assessee has claimed deduction of ₹ 1,04,70,137/- under section 80IB of the Act and Assessing Officer overlooked the fact whether the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions of that section or not. 5. Therefore, a notice was issued to the assessee fixing date of hearing on 6th February, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifically referred that this issue is raised by the learned Assessing Officer for which show cause notice dated 20.12.2017 was issued and assessee has submitted four replies dated 21.12.2017, 25.12.2017 and 26.12.2017. Based on this, the learned Assessing Officer did not make any addition, he therefore submitted that on this issue complete inquiry has been made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed again that there is no addition required to be made. ii. With respect to the second claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, he submitted that the main reason for selection of the scrutiny was large deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. Assessee replied vide letter dated 19.12.2017 and 3 other correspondences dated 21.12.2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. We find that issue of suppression of the work in progress was not at all part of the limited scrutiny scope before the Assessing Officer. Despite that the learned Assessing Officer examined the same and allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, now the issue arises whether the learned PCIT was within his powers to invoke the provisions of Section 263 of the Act on the issues which were not part of the examination before the learned Assessing Officer on the limited scrutiny, irrespective of the fact whether the ld AO examined it or not. We are of the view that if the case of the assessee is selected for limited scrutiny, The Assessing Officer could have inquired only on the issues for which were part of The Limited scrutiny reasons. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was also shown to him that these appeals for Assessment Year 2015-16 and the assessee is claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act since 2008-09. There has been no dispute with respect to the satisfaction of condition relevant to that section. Therefore, this issue was also examined by the learned Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 9. However, the issue remains that the learned PCIT while passing the order on 24th March, 2020 has stated that assessee did not comply with date of hearing on 20th February, 2020 and therefore, order was passed without considering the explanation of the assessee. We find that assessee has sent email on 19th March, 2020 explaining the reasons that on account of provision of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
