9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the circumstances, of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred by disregarding crucial facts wherein the appellant diligently provided vital information regarding cash deposit of Rs. 99,78,000/- received from clients for business purposes during the assessment proceedings despite the appellant's submission, the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to examine this information and erroneously included the entire sum in the appellant's total Income. The extreme oversight is not only unsustainable in law but also void, void - ab-initio and liable to be quashed due to its grave error in judgment. 3. The appellant craves to add, alter or amend ground or grounds of Appeal on or before the date of hearing as may be allowed by hon'ble appellate authority." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 was passed in the case of the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act and returned income of the assessee was accepted. Thereafter, the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (in short 'PCIT') invoked his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. PCIT in para 2 of the order observed that on examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from limited scrutiny to full scrutiny, however, the Assessing Officer failed to examine these issues. The ld. counsel in this respect has invited our attention to the assessment records/order sheets pertaining to the original assessment order dated 30.12.2016. The first file/zemni order dated 28.08.2015 shows that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny as per CASS for A.Y 2014-15. A reading of the next order dated 01.11.2016 reveals that the Assessing Officer had asked the assessee to submit details of share purchase and sale along with contract notes and bank details for the three scrips. A further perusal of the order-sheets would reveal that the case was selected for limited scrutiny relating to the investigation for purchase and sale of shares. However, the issue relating to cash deposits and sundry creditors was not part of the limited scrutiny. The perusal of the order-sheets further reveals that there is no mention in the order-sheet that the limited scrutiny was ever converted into full scrutiny. Neither any proposal was made by the Assessing Officer for converting limited scrutiny to full scrutiny nor there is any mention of any order of the higher authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll scrutiny, nor the ld. DR could produce on file any such document or approval for converting the limited scrutiny into full scrutiny in the case of the assessee. Therefore, under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act was bad in law and accordingly consequential proceedings were also bad in law. 6. However, now the question before us is that the assessee has not filed appeal against the section 263 order itself but has challenged the validity of the same in the consequential proceedings/order passed pursuant to the said order passed u/s 263 of the Act. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee in this respect has relied upon the following case laws: i. Keshab Narayan Banerjee vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 238 ITR 694 (1999) Calcutta High Court, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: "The Hon'ble Court held that the Ld single judge, therefore, while agreeing with the points raised by the appellant partly, did agree with the contention mainly with regard to the observations of the mandatory requirement of service of notice upon the appellant resulting in the passing of the order under Section 147 of the Act and held that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. That the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage even in appellate or execution stage. Neither the Rule of Estoppels nor the Principle of res-judicata can confer the jurisdiction where none exists. The facts in the case of P. B. Doshi 113 ITR 22(Gujrat) are very much relevant wherein re-assessment proceedings were initiated against assessee and an addition was made to his income. Before AAC, contention about validity of notice for re- assessment was given up by the assessee and on merits appeal was dismissed. On further appeal, Tribunal remanded matter to file of ITO with direction to on re-examine witness and then complete assessment. ITO on remand completed assessment and again made addition. On appeal, assessee re-agitated point of validity of re- assessment proceedings on ground that there was mere change of opinion. AAC found that no reasons were recorded by ITO before issuing notice for re-assessment and, therefore, held that ITO had no jurisdiction to re-open assessment. Tribunal held that in restoring case to file of ITO by earlier order, only point left open was in respect of addition of on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
