9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO cannot be said to be erroneous so as to prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We note that when the Ld. AO has exercised its jurisdiction within the boundary of the CBDT circular, verified the issues raised in a limited scrutiny and only upon due application of mind finalised the issue upon making disallowance u/s 57, PCIT cannot exercise the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon him u/s 263 of the Act beyond the issues which were raised and finalised under such limited scrutiny. On this aspect we have considered the judgement passed by different coordinate benches and the higher forums as relied upon by the Ld. A.R. It is a settled principle of law the PCIT cannot exercise the power of revision to look into any other issue which the assessing officer himself could not look into under the limited scrutiny proceeding. In other words the powers of the PCIT for revision u/s 263 of the Act would be limited to the issues which has been considered in the limited scrutiny assessment; the revisionary powers u/s 263 cannot frame beyond the issues considered in the limited scrutiny. In that view of the matter as observed by the PCIT that since the agricultural receipts and the issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking addition of Rs.52,60,162/- on account of disallowance under Section 57(iii) of the Act. 4. The Ld. PCIT after examination of the case records found that the assessee has claimed exempt agricultural income of Rs. 20,98,238/- and shown to have earned gross agricultural receipts of Rs.23,76,267/- in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. As the assessee has claimed expenditure to the tune of Rs.2,78,029/- only for earning the gross agricultural receipt of Rs.23,76,267/- which is just 11.7% of the gross agricultural receipts, relying upon the judgement passed by the Tribunal in the matter of the Dhirubhai L Nerula and others in ITA No. 2190 to 2192/Ahd/2004 dated 17.04.2004 particularly on the observation made therein that the agricultural expenses is 40% of the gross agricultural receipts in Gujarat, Rs.9,50,507/- (i.e. 40% of the gross receipt of Rs.23,76,267/-) same was required to be treated as expenses incurred to on agricultural income as opinion formed by the Ld. PCIT and in that view of the matter Rs.6,72,478/- was required to be treated as undisclosed income from the other sources and needed to be added to the total income of the assessee which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Co-ordinate Bench of Chennai Bench of Tribunal in case of Smt. Padmavathi vs ITO in ITA No. 1306/Chny/2019 for AY 2014-15 order dated 02.12.2019 reported in (2019) 177 TAXLOK.COM (IT) 652 (ITAT- Chennai) wherein it has been held as follows: it is settled position of law that while completing assessment order under limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer cannot look beyond the issue for which the case was selected for scrutiny. It is beyond the power of the Assessing Officer to look into any other issue which has come to his notice during the course of assessment proceedings. Then the issue that comes up for consideration is whether the Ld. PCIT could exercise the power of revision to look into any other issue which the Assessing Officer himself could not look. In our considered opinion, the answer is an emphatic No . Further the said order of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Smt. Padmavathi (2020) 182 TAXLOK.COM (IT) 328 (Mad) / (2020) 120 taxmann.com 187(Mad.) That similar view has been taken by the Delhi Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Balvinder Kumar Vs Pr. CIT reported in (2020) 183 TAXLOK.COM (IT) 349 (ITAT- Delhi) / ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that the Id. PCIT has also mentioned at para no. 2 that the case has been selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. On going through order u/s 263, we find that the order u/s 263 passed by the Id. PCIT dwelled into the issue of re-computation of capital gain which is beyond the mandate of the limited swutiny issued by the CBDT. Hence, the directions of the Id. PCIT which are beyond the selection criteria of scope of scrutiny for the instant year cannot be held to be legally valid. 3.11 Further, apart from the above referred rulings, various benches of this Hon'ble Tribunal has consistently held that when assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act has been taken up under limited scrutiny, then while invoking powers u/s 263 of the IT Act PCIT/ CIT cannot look into any other issue which the assessing officer himself could not look i.e. in other words while invoking powers u/s 263 of the IT Act PCIT/ CIT can-not dwelled into the issue which are beyond the mandate of limited scrutiny issued by the CBDT at the time of original assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act. List of those rulings are as follows: i) Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1013 1035/Pun/2O14- order dated 10.10.2017] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
