9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rutiny under the regular assessment and accordingly, allowed the Appeal filed by the assessee. The petitioner could not have on the same ground filed the rectification application as the Tribunal has already considered the same. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no mistake apparent on record from the order passed by the Tribunal in the Appeal so as to entertain the Misc. Application under Section 254 (2) . Tribunal has not committed any error which is apparent on record while passing the order in Appeal. If the petitioner has any grievance, the recourse in accordance with law can be taken but the provisions of Section 254 (2) of the Act would not be of any avail to the petitioner. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA AND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, passed the Assessment Order dated 18.12.2019 accepting the returned income. 3.4. It appears that thereafter the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short the PCIT ) passed an order under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct the inquiry by not invoking the provisions of Sections 68 to 69C and 115BBE of the Act by not treating the amount of Rs. 1,24,89,000/- declared by the assessee during the course of survey. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the order dated 15.12.2022 allowed the Appeal filed by the assessee quashing and setting aside the order passed by PCIT under Section 263 of the Act by observing as under : 6. We have heard the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r raised another issue that was not the subject matter of 'limited scrutiny'. In the limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer has no power or authority to examine any other issue except the issue on which case is selected. To substantiate his submission, the Id. AR submits that Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) In its Circular dated 29/12/2015 clearly held that in case of limited scrutiny cases, the questionnaire under Section 142 (1) shall remain confined only to the specific reason/issue for which a case has been picked up for scrutiny . The scope of enquiry shall be restricted to limited scrutiny issues. The cases shall be concluded expeditiously in a limited number of hearings. The Id. AR for the assessee submits that the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. The Assessing Officer after taking such reply, completed the assessment on 18/12/2019 without any variation. The Id. Pr. CIT in its show cause notice, identified the issue which was not the subject matter of limited scrutiny. In the show cause notice, the ld. Pr. CIT raised the issue that survey action was conducted on the assessee firm in relevant financial year and that the assessee made declaration of Rs. 1.24 crore on account of undisclosed expenses. We find that such issue was not the subject matter of scrutiny, hence, the Assessing Officer was not entitled to raise such question. However, we find that the assessee in his reply dated 09/09/2019 submitted before Assessing Officer submitted that they have duly offered the disclosed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the twin condition as required to revise the assessment order is not meet out in the present case, therefore, the order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessce are allowed. 3.5. The petitioner thereafter preferred the Misc. Application under Section 254 (2) of the Act on the same grounds which were challenged before the Tribunal contending that the Assessing Officer did not carry out the examination and therefore, as per Explanation 2 to Section 263, the CIT was justified in passing the Revisional Order. It was contended that the Tribunal has committed mistake apparent on record by considering the fact of limited scrutiny as there was a case of survey and the returned income was to be examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrutiny. 4.2. It was submitted that the Appeal filed by the assessee stating that the case was selected for limited scrutiny could not have been accepted by the Tribunal as the PCIT while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act has fulfilled the twin conditions of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue whereby, there was a loss to the revenue of not taxing the amount of declaration made by the assessee of Rs. 1,24,89,000/- during the course of survey. 4.3. It was therefore submitted that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the Misc. Application and recall the order passed in the Appeal. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it eme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
