9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 20.05.2019 was issued to the assessee calling for details. The assessee has explained the details of sources of fund for cash deposits before the Assessing Officer. Based on the clarifications and submissions of documents, the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income of the assessee and completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 27.09.2019. 3. Subsequently, by exercising the power conferred under section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT issued show cause notice to the assessee on the following grounds: "2.9 As the assessee is not one of the entities authorised to accept SBNs during demonetisation period in exchange for goods /service, and as the assessee claimed that he had carried out valid sales during the demonetisation period, such sales pre-suppose the receipt of price in legal tender currency only. Any other claim to the contrary is not acceptable. 2.10 In this case, the assessee deposited Rs.44,90,500/- in old SBN during demonetisation period in excess of the cash on hand at the opening of 09.11.2016. The possibility that they represented undisclosed receipts of predemonetisation period was not even considered or examined by the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered a fit case to invoke the provisions of Sec. 263 of the Act since the order u/s.143(3) dated 27.09.2019 is considered to have been passed without making the necessary enquiries and verifications and without appropriate correlation of facts and evidences on record. The said order is, therefore, considered erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Sec.263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the assessment order is hereby set aside u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the aspects, as discussed supra and pass a fresh order within the stipulated time, after granting opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The assessee can furnish documents which were not available at the time of assessment in the records of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination." 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The first argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS "limited scrutiny" category to examine the "Cash deposit during the year". It was submitted that the assessee has f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The ld. DR has also relied on the decision in the case of Vaishnavi Bullion Private Limited [TS-914-ITAT-2022(HYD)]. 6. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS "LIMITED SCRUTINY" category to examine the "Cash deposit during the year". The vehicle loan interest, interest on overdraft and other interest payments debited in the profit and loss account nothing to do with the cash deposits made during the year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has only examined cash deposited during year for which the case was selected under CASS - Limited Scrutiny correctly. As per para 3 of the CBDT circular, referred hereinabove, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed further to examine except what is provided in para 3 of the circular. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be said that it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. On an identical issue in similar facts and circumstances in the case of Subbunadar Chandra Sekar v. ITO (supra), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CASS 2017 and 2018 cycles would not be taken up for 'Complete Scrutiny' as the present directive is only to facilitate consideration of those issues wherein specific information of taxevasion has been furnished by any law-enforcement/intelligence/regulatory authority or agency. Therefore, in such 'Limited Scrutiny' cases, Assessing Officer shall not expand the scope of enquiry/investigation beyond the issue(s) on which the case was flagged for 'Limited Scrutiny' & issue arising from nature of information mentioned in para 2 and 3, above. 5. The following procedure shall be adopted while examining the additional issue: i. The Assessing Officer shall duly record the reasons for expanding the scope of 'Limited Scrutiny' to the extent mentioned in para 2 and 3, above; ii. The same shall be placed before the Pr. CIT/CIT concerned and upon his approval, further issue can be considered during the assessment proceeding; iii. The Assessing Officer shall issue an intimation to the assessee concerned that additional issue would also be considered during the course of pending assessment proceeding; iv. To ensure proper monitoring in these cases, provisions of section 144A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osits. It is an admitted position of law that in limited scrutiny assessments, scope of verification is limited to the issues mentioned in the notice issued under CASS system. The Assessing Officer cannot travel beyond the issues on which assessment has been taken up for scrutiny. Therefore, once the Assessing Officer does not have power to go beyond the issues on which he has taken up case for scrutiny, then obviously, the learned PCIT cannot term the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous, insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue on issues other than the issue taken up by the Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessment proceedings. In this case, on perusal of materials available on record, we find that the learned PCIT has revised assessment order on the issues other than the issue considered by the Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned PCIT has exceeded her jurisdiction in examining issues other than the issues which is subject matter of limited scrutiny assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Hence, we are of the considered view that revision order passed by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
