9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, the ITAT has set aside an order dated 29th March, 2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT), Cuttack under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) for the said AY holding that the original Assessment Order dated 23rd November, 2016 under Section 143(3) of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under 'limited scrutiny' category was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. The background facts are that the original assessment in the case of the Assessee came to be completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the AO by the Assessment Order dated 23rd November, 2016 in the 'limited scrutiny' category where the issue was "excess liability shown and disallowance under section 40A(3) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Conscious that there was another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Chennai Bench of the ITAT dated 2nd December, 2019 in ITA No.1306/Chny/2019 (Smt. Padmavathi v. ITO), which had been upheld by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Smt. Padmavathi, (2020) 120 taxmann.corn 187 (Mad), it was contended by the Revenue before the ITAT that if it is not inclined to follow the decision in Sri Sushanta Kumar Choudhury (supra), it should refer the matter to the Larger Bench of the ITAT. 8. In the impugned order, the ITAT distinguished its own decision in Sri Sushanta Kumar Choudhury (supra) as under: "12. Coming to the issue of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Sushant Kumar Choudhury (supra) the facts in the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e superior officer in terms of the CBDT Instruction No.7/14 dated 26th September, 2014 and Instruction No.20/15 dated 19th December, 2015. Consequently, it was not open to the Pr. CIT while exercising suo motu revisional power under Section 263 of the Act to find fault with the assessment order of the AO on the ground of its being erroneous on an issue not covered by the 'limited scrutiny' when the AO could not have possibly examined such issue. To reiterate, in the present case, the limited scrutiny was in respect of excess disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act whereas the SCN under Section 263 was regarding the FIFO method of valuation of closing stock adopted by the Assessee. These were, as rightly noted by the ITAT, unconnected i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
