9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21/1031856813(1), dated 28/03/2021 for the AY 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society which filed its return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 23/3/2017 declaring total income of Rs. NIL. The assessee is engaged in selling fertilizers, diesel, granting loans against mortgage of Gold ornaments, accepting deposits and granting loans for agricultural operation to its members and running the activities in the name and style of M/s. Sri Venu Gopala Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason "to examine whether the cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources". Subsequently, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT in directing the Assessing Officer to examine the eligibility of the appellant to claim deduction in respect of sale of diesel and PDS commodities in as much as issue is outside the scope of limited scrutiny that was taken up by the Assessing Officer to examine the issue whether the cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in observing that the sale of diesel and PDS commodities is not related to the activity of the appellant in providing banking and credit facilities to its members and hence not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e garb of section 263 of the Act, cannot exceed his jurisdiction. The observations of the Bench are as under: "8. We shall now in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations deliberate on the validity of the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263. As observed by us hereinabove, the Pr. CIT had held the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 08.12.2016 as erroneous, in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, for the reason, that he had failed to carry out proper investigation as regards the issue of valuation of the 'closing stock' as reflected in the audited accounts of the assessee. We are of a strong conviction that now when the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he A.O. As we have quashed the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 on the ground of invalid assumption of jurisdiction by him, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and therein adjudicating the contentions advanced by the Id. A.R on the merits of the case, which thus are left open." 7. As well, in the case of R &H Property Developers vs. CIT ITA (supra) the "D" Bench of the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, in a limited scrutiny assessment case holding that the Ld. Pr. CIT has wrongly assumed the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 8. Further, In the case of Nayek Paper Converters vs. ACIT the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal has held that where the case was selected for limited scrutiny und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
