9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate scrutiny proceedings in total disregard to the mandatory CBDT instructions no. 1/2011 dated 31/01/2011. (ii) That the Appellant firm having filed the return of income showing NIL income, the jurisdiction to issue Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in respect of income declared upto 20 lacs lies with the Income Tax Officer and as such the said Notice issued by ACIT, Circle 50(1), Delhi is illegal and void ab initio. iii) That in the light of contravention and in the absence of any evidence of the Assessing officer assuming jurisdiction based on any other administrative and judicial notification, the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of foreign travel, the observations made by the CIT (A) are whimsical and without pointing out any specific defect or raising any query with regard to any expense. iii) That the CIT (A) has erred in disallowing the foreign travel expenses without appreciating the fact that these expenditures were incurred exclusively for the purpose of its routine business and are not hit by the provisions of explanation I to section 37 of the Act. 4(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining the disallowance of car repair and maintenance expenses of Rs. 4,37,092/- without even looking into the supporting documents submitted by the Appellant. (ii)That the Assessing Officer having not disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant craves leaves to add, alter, amend, forgot any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee field e-return for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 30/09/2015 declaring NIL income. Later on, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessment order came to be passed by ACIT Circle, 15(1) New Delhi, by making addition of Rs. 1,58,77,115/- as against returned NIL income. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31/12/2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), wherein the assessee apart from raising the grounds on merit also raised the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT, Circle 50 (1), New Delhi on 28/07/2016 subsequently, the impugned assessment order has also been passed by the ACIT, Circle 50(1) New Delhi on 31/12/2017. As per the Instruction No. 1/2011[F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A)-1)] dated 31/01/2011 the issued by the CBDT instructions regarding income limits for assigning cases to Deputy Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners/ITOs, wherein the corporate returns up to 20,00,000/-comes under the jurisdiction of income tax officer. The Instruction No. 1/2021 is reproduced as under:- "INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A1)), DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal in the case of M/s. Kelvin International Vs. DCIT (ITA NO. 5363/Del/2017) dated 22.12.2023, wherein the notice has been issued contrary to the CBDT Circular No. 1/2011, therefore, the same has been declared as having issued without jurisdiction and consequently the assessment order has been quashed in following manners:- "6. From the above, it is evident that as per the CBDT Instruction 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011, the moment the return of income has been filed by the assessee disclosing taxable income more than 15 lakhs or 20 lakhs for Mofussil and metro areas respectively, as the case may be, the scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) of the Act could be issued only by the authority in the rank of ACIT/ DCIT and not by ITO. In this regard, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he jurisdictional officer, the assessment framed on the assessee requires to be quashed. This view of ours is further fortified by the following decisions:- a) Decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of CIT v. Cebon India Ltd reported in 347 ITR 583 (P&H). b) Decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority reported in 347 ITR 14 (All). c) Decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitson Engineering Company reported in 370 ITR 87 (Mad). d) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khadelwal reported in 266 taxman 171 (SC). 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
