9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 u/s 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 issues and the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utiny category where the issue was excess liability shown and disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. When the Pr. CIT decided to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, he issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the Assessee seeking to revisit the Assessment Order on the question of under valuation of closing stock , which was beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny undertaken by the AO. 5. By the order dated 29th March 2019, the Pr. CIT while concluding that the Assessment Order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, directed the AO to modify his Assessment Order dated 23.11.2016 by making further addition of Rs.15,53,849/- under the head undervaluation to closing stock. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Sushant Kumar Choudhury (supra) the facts in the said case were that the Pr. CIT mentioned that the order of the AO is erroneous insofar as he did not ask for permission for complete scrutiny and to that extent, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, there is no such averment by the Pr. CIT. Even assuming such averment is there, the order of revision would be unsustainable insofar as the issue raised by Pr. CIT is in no way connected to the issues that have been raised in the limited scrutiny assessment. Thus, the decision in the case of Sri Sushanta Kumar Choudhury (supra) is clearly distinguish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
