9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vested the impugned amount in the partnership firm and surrendered as its undisclosed income. CIT in the revisional proceedings could not have invoked Sect ion 68 towards such unexplained investments in the firm in the absence of any credit in the books of assessee per se and the right course, possibly, could be Section 69 of the Act at best for which no case has been made out by the Pr.CIT. As contended Tribunal cannot uphold the revisional action of the Pr.CIT on a different ground then what is alleged in the revisional proceedings as held in CIT vs. Jagadhri Electric Supply and Industrial Company, [ 1981 (3) TMI 19 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - We thus find traction in the contention that where Section 68 as alleged and invoked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.83,11,070/-. The return filed was subjected to limited scrutiny through CASS [Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection] on the following issue Payment of tax in cash during demonetization period . The income offered by the assessee was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act without any adjustments. 4. Thereafter, the PCIT in exercise of revisionary powers, issued show cause notice dated 21.01.2022 to show cause why the assessment so framed under section 143(3) should not be modified/set aside on the ground that such order is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 5. As per the show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case was selected for limited scrutiny and therefore the scope of the assessment was confined to the points noted in the scrutiny notice issued under s.143(2) of the Act read with CBDT Instruction No.5/2016 dated 14th July, 2016. As per the aforesaid notice, the solitary issue identified for examination was on account of payment of tax in cash during the demonetization period . ii) The Assessing Officer duly complied with the requirement of issue raised in limited scrutiny and after considering the replies and documents submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and framed the assessment on returned income. iii) On facts, no payment of tax in cash as alleged was made during the demonization period as pointed out by ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d scrutiny, i.e., Payment of tax in cash during demonetization period . In response, the assessee has filed replies explaining the relevant facts in this regard. The Assessing Officer was satisfied with the answers made available in response to allegation towards payment of tax in cash. Thus, in the absence of any error in the act ion of the Assessing Officer qua the issue of limited scrutiny, the revisional action in the instant case is unsustainable in law. 10. We also find merit in the plea of the assessee that having regard to CBDT instruction Nos. 7/2015, 20/2015 5/2016 and also CBDT letter dated 30.11.2017, the AO was not entitled to go beyond the reasons for selection of matter for limited scrutiny. As a corollary, it is not op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
