Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack
M/S. Shark Mines & Minerals P.Limited, ... vs Pr.Cit, Cutack, Cuttack on 18 August, 2022
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.128/CTK/2019
Assessment Year : 2014-15
15
M/s. Shark Mines & Minerals Vs. Pr. CIT, Cuttack
Pvt Ltd., A/62, BDA Housing
Complex, Palaspalli,
Bhubaneswar.
PAN/GIR No.No.AAKCS 2385 R
(Appellant
(Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
Respondent
Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, AR
Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Date of Hearing : 18/8
8/ 2022
Date of Pronouncement : 18/8
8/2022
ORDER
Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr.
CIT Cuttack in Appeal No.PCIT/CTC/263/17/2018 No.PCIT/CTC/263/17/2018-19/6704-06 dated 29.3.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15 15 u/s.263 of the Act.
2. Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
3. This appeal had been disposed of by the order of the Co Co-ordinate Bench of this Tri Tribunal bunal dated 10.6.2021. As Ground Nos.2 & 3 of the P a g e 1 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 assessee had not been adjudicated, the said order was recalled by order dated 17.6.2022 in M.A.No.02/CTK/2022. Consequently, only Ground Nos.2 & 3 are being adjudicated. Ground No2 & 3 reads as follows:
"2. For that ld Pr. CIT is not justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s.263 of the I.T.Act and modifying the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act on 23.11.2016 under "limited scrutiny" category inconformity with CBDT Instructions on the facts in the circumstances of the case.
3. For that ld Pr. CIT is not justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s.263 in respect of valuation of closing stock when the same was not the subject matter of "Limited scrutiny" in the assessment completed u/s.143(3) on the facts and in circumstances of the case."
4. It was the submission by ld AR that the original assessment in the case of the assessee came to be completed u/s.143(3) on 23.11.2016 under Limited Scrutiny. It was the submission that the Limited Scrutiny was in relation to the issue of excess liability shown and disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. It was the submission that consequently, the Pr.
CIT, Cuttack invoked his powers u/s.263 of the Act for the purpose of revising the assessment order on the ground that there was failure on the part of the Assessing officer to verify the under valuation of closing stock and this has rendered the assessment order both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was the submission that the Pr. CIT has in his order u/s.263 of the Act directed the Assessing Officer to make the addition under the head "under valuation of closing stock". It was the submission that the original assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act being under P a g e 2 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 Limited Scrutiny, the powers of the Ld Pr. CIT for revision u/s.263 of the Act would be limited to the issues which have been considered in the limited scrutiny assessment and the revisionary powers cannot go beyond the issues considered in the Limited Scrutiny. It was the submission that the order of the Pr. CIT was liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Padmavathi vs ITO in ITA No.1306/Chny/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 order dated 2.12.2019, wherein, one of us was a party, it has been held that "it is settled position of law that while completing the assessment 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 our 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".
It was the submission that this order of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Smt. Padmavathi, (2020) 120 taxmann.com 187 (Mad).
5. He also placed before us the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Balvinder Kumar vs Pr. CIT (2021) 125 P a g e 3 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 taxmann.com 83 (Delhi.Trib), wherein, the Tribunal has categorically held in para 11 as under:
'Similarly, is the view taken consistently by the benches of this Tribunal in the other two cases also, relied upon by the assessee. in the circumstances, in view of the consistent view taken in similar matters, we are of the considered opinion that when the AO is bound to follow the CBDT instructions and while following such instruction and after verification of the material furnished by the assessee on the aspect covered by the limited scrutiny, is not open for the ld Pr. CIT to say that not adverting to the other aspects of the competition would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. With this view of the matter, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. We accordingly quash the same."
6. Ld AR also placed reliance before us the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Rajani Venkata Naga Annavarapu Narayana vs Pr. CIT in ITA No.1871/Del/2020 for A.Y. 2015-16 order dated 16.6.2021, wherein, in para 12, it has been held as follows:
"12. We find that the ld. 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 ld. PCIT dwelled into the issue of "re-computation of capital gains"
which is beyond the mandate of the limited scrutiny issued by the CBDT. Hence , the directions o f the ld. PCIT which are beyond the selection criteria of scope of scrutiny for the instant year cannot be held to be legally valid."
7. He further relied upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Akash Ganga promoters & Developers vs Pr. CIT, in ITA No.164/CTK/2019 order dated 18.12.2019, wherein, the Tribunal has P a g e 4 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 taken the similar view. It was the submission that the order u/s.263 of the Act passed by the pr. CIT is liable to be quashed.
8. In reply, ld CIT DR placed before us the copy of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Sushanta Kumar Choudhury vs Pr. CIT in ITA No.226/CTK/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 order dated 5.10.2020, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has taken a view that the revisionary powers were possible to consider the issues which are not considered and which were not part of limited scrutiny. He drew our attention to page 3 of the order to submit that in that case the limited scrutiny was in regard to three issues mentioned thereon. Further, he referred to page 10 of the order to submit that the Pr. CIT had invoked his revisionary powers to look into other issues, which were not part of the issues considered in the limited scrutiny. He drew our attention to page 21 paras 11 to 13, which reads as follows:
"11. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire material available on record and the orders of authorities below, we find that the case of the assessee was selected through CASS for the limited scrutiny purpose for verification on the following three points :-
i) contract receipts/fees mistmatch
ii) sales turnover mismatch
iii) iv) tax credit mismatch
On going through the AO's order, we noticed that he has made addition on the claims of the expenses debited into the profit and loss account under the account head repair and maintenance and spare parts on lumpsum basis of Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.85,000/-, respectively, which is also beyond the purpose for taking limited scrutiny and as per the documents available before us, this issue has not been challenged the assessee before any of the authorities P a g e 5 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 below. Later on the ld. Pr.CIT after examining the records exercised his power u/s.263(1) of the Act on the aforesaid issues and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. Ld.AR vehemently objected the powers exercised by the ld. Pr.CIT regarding passing of fresh assessment order as per the show cause notice issued by him whereas he was unable to demonstrate the action of the AO who has travelled beyond the limited scrutiny that means the order of AO has been accepted. In one hand, the assessee has accepted the assessment framed by the AO whereas in other hand, the assessee has challenged the order of Pr.CIT for examining in details. In our opinion, the contention of ld. AR regarding revisionary power exercised by the Pr.CIT in case of limited scrutiny, is not accepted on the basis of recent decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in case of Baby Memorial Hospital Ltd. (supra). If there is an escapement of income or potentiality of income involved in the issues which has not been done by the AO while completing the limited scrutiny assessment the AO could have obtained the permission from the ld. Pr.CIT if he finds that there is a potentiality of the income. The case law relied on by the ld. DR is for the assessment year 2014-2015 and the assessee's case is also for the assessment year 2014-2015, therefore, the case is squarely covered by decision of the of coordinate bench of the Tribunal ITA No.226/CTK/2019 23 in case of Baby Memorial Hospital Ltd. (supra), wherein the Tribunal has observed as under :-
3. The facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15 by accepting the income returned. On verification of records, the Pr. CIT noticed that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was prima facie erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Pr. CIT found that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.2,08,09,140/- being foreign exchange loss which was allowed by the Assessing Officer. According to the Pr. CIT, the foreign exchange loss was on account of foreign currency loan taken for the construction of new building and additional equipment and the loss was recognized translating the liabilities at exchange rate in effect at the balance sheet date. According to the Pr. CIT, the loss on devaluation of rupees on account of loan utilized for fixed capital was not deductible u/s. 37(1) of the Act since the expenditure is capital in nature. Therefore, it was held that the foreign exchange loss claimed as revenue expenditure is to be disallowed in the assessment 3.1 Further, it was noticed that the assessee debited an amount of Rs.15,83,130/- in its P&L account towards provision for doubtful debts. According to the Pr. CIT, this P a g e 6 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 being provision for diminution in value of trade receivables in the balance sheet had to be added to profit for computation of book profit which resulted in short assessment of income under MAT. The Pr. CIT observed that as per clause (1) explanation 1 to section 115JB(2), the provision for doubtful debts being provision for diminution in value of trade receivables, had to be added to profit for computation of book profit for calculation of income under Minimum Alternate Tax.
3.2 The Pr. CIT observed that the Assessing Officer had not considered or had applied his mind to the facts of the case and with regard to the provisions of the Act in respect of the above issues. Therefore, the Pr. CIT set aside the assessment for the assessment year 2014-15 and invoked the provision of section 263 of the I.T. Act for the limited purpose of verifying whether the foreign exchange loss qualifies for being a revenue expenditure and secondly to rework MAT income after adding back the provision for doubtful debts, as necessary examination/verification has not been made during the assessment.
4. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that this was a limited Scrutiny assessment and the reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny for furnishing of details specific to the CASS reasons. It was submitted that the details were furnished in response to notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 27/06/2016 and after verification the Asst. Commissioner had accepted the explanation given by the assessee, so proper enquiry was made in the limited scrutiny case and therefore, the A.O had applied his mind to the facts of the case and therefore, his order is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, it was submitted that the order of the Commissioner is invalid.
4.1 The learned AR had submitted that in a limited scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer has to restrict himself to the issues raised in the limited scrutiny and cannot make any addition on other issues. In support of this submission, the learned AR had relied on the following Tribunal orders:-
(i) Nitin Killawala & Associates v. ITO [ITA No.1611/Mum/2013 - order dated 16.09.2015] ITAT Mumbai Benches.
(ii) Ms.Yikti Tiwari v. ITO [ITA No.660/Lkw/2018 - order dated 22.02.2019] ITAT Lucknow Benches.
P a g e 7 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5
(iii) Suresh Jugraj Mutha v. Addl.CIT [ITA No.05/Pun/2016
- order dated 04.05.2018] ITAT Pune Benches.
(iv) M/s.Srinidhi Mines v. ITO [3084/Bang/2018 - order dated 25.04.2019] ITAT Bangalore Benches.
(v) Smt.Gurpreet Kaur v. ITO [87/Asr/2016 - order dated 24.03.2016] ITAT Amritsar Bench.
4.2 In these cases, it was held that when an assessment is selected for limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer cannot expand the scope of limited scrutiny beyond the reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny unless prior administrative approval is obtained from the Pr.CIT /CIT or DIT concerned.
4.3 The learned AR had also submitted that if the Assessing Officer has no power to pass an order on a particular issue, then Pr.CIT also has no power on that issue u/s 263 of the I.T. Act. In this context, the learned AR relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Paul John, Delicious Cashew Co. 94 ITD 131 (Cochin Tribunal), which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in the case reported in 200 Taxmann 154. In the case of Paul John, Delicious Cashew Co. (supra) considered by the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal, it was held that the completed assessment cannot be reopened by the A.O. It was further held by the Tribunal that if the Assessing Officer does not have power to reopen an assessment, which is already concluded, the CIT could not have exercised his powers u/s 263 of the I.T. Act directing the A.O. to pass assessment making disallowance. The above view taken by the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court.
4.4 The learned AR further submitted that when the assessment is taken up for `limited scrutiny', the Pr.CIT / CIT cannot hold the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in respect of an issue which was not a reason for selection of the case for `limited scrutiny'. In this context, the learned AR had relied on the following Tribunal orders:-
(i) The Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1013 & 1035/Pun/2014 -
order dated 10.10.2017], ITAT Pune Benches. ITA No.226/CTK/2019 25
(ii) M/s.Aggarwal Promoters v. Pr.CIT [1708/Chd/2017 - order dated 16.04.2019] ITA Chandigarh Benches.
(iii) Sanjeev Kr. Khemka v. Pr.CIT [1361/Kol/2016 - order dated 02.06.2017] ITAT Kolkata Benches.
(iv) Rakesh Kumar v. CIT [6187/Del/2015 - order dated 20.12.2018] ITAT New Delhi Benches.
P a g e 8 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5
(v) M/s. R & H Property Developer Pvt.Ltd. v. Pr.CIT [1906/Mum/2019 - order dated 30.07.2019] ITAT Mumbai Benches.
(vi) Mrs.Sonali Hemant Bhavsar v. Pr.CIT [742/Mum/2019 - order dated 17.05.2019] ITAT Mumbai Benches.
4.5 The learned AR had submitted that in response to the show cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, when the assessee has filed replies, the PCIT has to give positive finding on merits while setting aside the matter u/s 263 of the I.T. Act on how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In support of his submission, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Narayana Pai (T) [98 ITR 422]. The Explanation 2(a) to section 263 of the I.T. Act, states that the assessment order shall deem to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if I.T.A. No.420/Coch/2019 such an order was passed without making inquiry or verification, which should have been made.
xxxxx
6. The Ld. DR submitted that in this case, the assessment was taken up for limited scrutiny under CASS on account of AR information. Notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act dated 31/08/2015 was issued to the assessee. Further details specific to CASS were called for from the assessee vide notice issued u/s. 142(1) dated 27/06/2016 and the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation offered by the assessee in response to such notice.
6.1 The Ld. DR relied on the subsequent Circular No.20/2015 dated 29.12.2015 and Instruction No.5/2016 dated 14.07.2016. He drew our attention to para 4 of the above Instruction wherein it was mentioned that when potential escapement of income exceeds Rs.10 lakh on issues other than selected under CASS, the Assessing Officer has the power to take up the assessment for comprehensive scrutiny with the approval of the Pr.CIT/DIT concerned. In the instant case, the potential escapement of income is far exceeding Rs.10 lakh prescribed under the above mentioned CBDT Instructions.. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could have converted the limited scrutiny assessment into a complete scrutiny assessment by obtaining approval from the Pr.CIT/DIT concerned. According to the Ld. DR, the Assessing Officer failed to convert the limited scrutiny into a complete scrutiny and thereby, there was escapement of income of more than Rs.10 lakhs. As such the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the Pr.CIT to invoke his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T. Act P a g e 9 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 6.2 Further, the Ld. DR submitted that the CBDT Instruction relevant for the period as regards the limited scrutiny assessment is Instruction No.7/2014 dated 26.09.2014. Instruction No.7/2014 reads as follow:-
"Subject: - Scope of enquiry in cases selected for scrutiny during the Financial Year 2014- 2015 on basis of mis-match-regarding-
It has come to the notice of the Board that during the scrutiny assessment proceedings some of the AOs are routinely calling for information which is not relevant, for enquiry into the issues to be considered. This has been causing undue harassment to the taxpayers and has also drawn adverse criticism from several quarters. Further, feedback and analysis of such orders indicates that many times the core issues, which formed the basis of selection of the case for scrutiny were not examined properly. Such instances primarily occurred in cases selected for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection ('CASS') for verification of specific information obtained from third party sources which apparently did not match with the details submitted by the tax payer in the return of income.
2. Therefore, for proper administration of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), Central Board of Direct Taxes, by virtue of its powers under section 119 of the Act, in supersession of earlier instructions/ guidelines on this subject, ere by directs that the cases selected for scrutiny during the Financial Year 2014-2015 under CASS, on the basis of either AIR data or CIB information or for non re- conciliation with 26AS data, the scope of enquiry should be limited to verification these particular aspects only. Therefore, in such cases, an Assessing Officer shall confine the questionnaire and subsequent enquiry or verification only to the specific point(s) on the basis of which the particular return has been selected for scrutiny.
3. The reason(s) for selection of cases under CASS are displayed to the Assessing Officer in AST application and notice u/s 143(2), after generation from AST, is issued to the taxpayer with the remark "Selected under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS)". The functionality in AST is being modified suitably to flag the reasons for scrutiny selection in cases. This functionality is expected to be operationalised by 15th October, 2014. Further, the Assessing Officer while issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act which is enclosed with the first questionnaire would proceed to verify only the specific aspects requiring examination/verification. In such cases, all efforts would be made to ensure that assessment proceedings are completed expeditiously in minimum possible number of hearings without unnecessarily dragging the case till the time-barring date.
P a g e 10 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5
4. In case, during the course of assessment proceedings it is found that there is potential escapement of income exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs (for nonmetro charges, the monetary limit shall be Rs. 5 lakhs) on any other issue(s) apart from the information based on which the case was selected under CASS requiring substantial verification, the case may be taken up for comprehensive scrutiny with the approval of the Pr.CIT/DIT concerned. However, such an approval shall be accorded by the Pr. CIT/DIT in writing after being satisfied about merits of the issue(s) necessitating wider and detailed scrutiny in the case. Cases so taken up for detailed scrutiny shall be monitored by the Jt. CIT/Addl. CIT concerned.
5. The contents of this Instruction should be immediately brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance."
6.3 It was submitted that the above Instructions have been modified subsequently vide Instruction No.20/2015 dated 29.12.2015 and Instruction No.5/2016 dated 14.07.2016. From para 4 of the above Instruction, it is clear that when potential escapement of income exceeds Rs.10 lakh on issues other than selected under I.T.A. No.420/Coch/2019 CASS, the Assessing Officer has the power to take up the assessment for comprehensive scrutiny with the approval of the Pr.CIT / DIT concerned. In the instant case, the potential escapement of income is far exceeding Rs.10 lakh prescribed under the above mentioned CBDT Instructions. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could have converted the limited scrutiny assessment in this case to a complete scrutiny assessment by taking approval / permission from the Pr.CIT / DIT concerned. On merit, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Pr. CIT.
7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record and also gone through all the case laws cited by the parties. Section 263 of the Income-tax Act seeks to remove the prejudice caused to the revenue by the erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. It empowers the Commissioner to initiate suo moto proceedings either where the Assessing Officer takes a wrong decision without considering the materials available on record or he takes a decision without making an enquiry into the matters, where such inquiry was prima facie warranted. The Commissioner is well within his powers to treat an order as erroneous on the ground that the Assessing Officer should have made further inquiries before accepting the wrong claims made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer cannot remain passive in the face of a claim, which calls for further enquiry to know the genuineness of it. In other words, he must carry out investigation where the facts of the case so require and also decide the matter judiciously on the basis of materials collected by him as also those produced by the assessee before him. The Assessing Officer was statutorily required to make the assessment under Section 143(3) after I.T.A. No.420/Coch/2019 scrutiny and not in a P a g e 11 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 summary manner as contemplated by Sub-section (1) of Section
143. The Assessing Officer is therefore, required to act fairly while accepting or rejecting the claim of the assessee in cases of scrutiny assessments. The Assessing Officer should protect the interests of the revenue and to see that no one dodged the revenue and escaped without paying the legitimate tax. The Assessing Officer is not expected to put blinkers on his eyes and mechanically accept what the assessee claims before him. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated and the genuineness of the claims made in the return. The order passed by the Assessing Officer becomes erroneous when an enquiry has not been made before accepting the genuineness of the claim which resulted in loss of revenue.
7.1 In the present case, the first issue for our consideration is whether the Assessing Officer having failed to convert limited scrutiny into a complete scrutiny, the assessment order would be rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
7.2 The Pr. CIT invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act for considering the following two issues:
"The assessee had claimed an amount of Rs 2,08,09,140/- being foreign exchange loss was allowed in assessment The foreign exchange loss on account of foreign currency loan taken for the construction of new and additional equipment. The loss was recognized translating the liabilities at exchange rate in effect at the balance sheet date. The loss on devaluation of rupees on account of loan utilized for fixed capital not deductible u/s. 37(1) of the Act, since the expenditure is capital in nature.
Assessee debited an amount of Rs 15,83,130/- in its P&L account towards provision for doubtful debts. This being provision for diminution in value of trade receivables in the balance sheet, had to be added to profit for computation of book profit. This has resulted in short assessment of income under MAT."
7.3 On the above two issues, the Pr. CIT observed as follows:
"The issue is that the AO has not considered or had applied his mind to the facts of the case and with relation to the provision of the Act in respect of the above issues. Therefore, the assessment for the AY 2014- 15 is hereby set aside for the limited purpose of verifying whether the foreign exchange loss qualifies for being a revenue expenditure and secondly to rework MAT income after adding back the provision for doubtful debts, as necessary examination/verification has not been made during the assessment.
7.4 In this case, the assessment was based on limited scrutiny with reference to AR information and no addition was made by the Assessing Officer on that count. In our opinion, even in a case of P a g e 12 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 limited scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to make a prima facie enquiry as to whether there is any other item which requires examination and in the assessment, the potential escapement of income thereof exceeded Rs.10 lakhs. He ought to have sought the permission of CIT/DIT to convert the 'limited scrutiny assessment' into a 'complete scrutiny assessment'. If there is no escapement of income, which would have been more than Rs.10 lakhs, the Pr. CIT could not exercise jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act. In the present case, the assessee itself agreed that the Pr. CIT is justified in giving direction to rework MAT income after adding back the provision for doubtful debts. Now, the argument of the Ld. AR that in case of limited scrutiny assessment, the Pr. CIT could not exercise jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the ground relating to challenging of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 is rejected.
12. On going through the assessment order, there is no any whisper in the order of assessment passed by the AO regarding the subject matter of purpose for the scrutiny and he has made addition on the other subjects which was not part of the aforesaid purpose of the limited scrutiny. In these circumstances, the AO should have obtained permission from the ld. Pr.CIT/CIT. In view of this, the order passed by the AO is also erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. To support our view, we would like to place reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maa Tarini Industries Ltd., ITA No.292/CTK/2019, order dated 17.03.2020, wherein the issue of limited scrutiny is involved which is similar to the present case. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under
:-
25. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that admittedly and undisputedly, from the copy of the notice by the AO u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 13.1.2015, it is ample clear that the case of the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 was selected for Limited Scrutiny only on two issues i.e. higher turnover report in service tax return compared to ITR and mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s.40A(2)(b) reported in audit report and ITR.
28 .So far as sufficiency and adequacy of enquiry on the issues of ' Limited Scrutiny' are concerned, we observe that the AO issued notice u/s.143(2) and u/s.142(1) of the Act which were replied by the assessee and copies of these notices and replies have been placed on record at APB pages 42 to 113, which shows that the AO makes some inquiry on the issues picked up by him by way of issuing notices and taking on record replies, explanation and relevant documents submitted by the assessee in compliance to the said notice. However, we are unable to find any deliberation in the assessment order regarding these issues which could show and satisfy us that the AO not only made sufficient and adequate P a g e 13 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 enquiries on the issues for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny but also made deliberation by application of mind and thereafter adjudicated the issues by way of inserting deliberation in the assessment order.
29. Ld A.R. has placed into service CBDT Circular/instruction No.5/2016 dated 14.7.2016 regarding scope of enquiry in cases under ' Limited Scrutiny' selected through CASS 2015 and 2016 but in the same instruction/circular, in paras 2 to 6, it has also been provided that in a case which was originally earmarked for ' Limited scrutiny', the AO shall be required to form a reasonable view that there is possibility of under assessment of income if the case is not examined under 'Complete scrutiny' and the case may be converted from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny, which requires administrative approval from pr. CIT/CIT/Pr. DIT/DIT, as prescribed in para 3(d) of earlier instruction dated 29.12.2015.
30. From a careful reading of the impugned order passed u/s.263 of the Act, we clearly observe that the assessee company had shown gross turnover /revenue from operation of Rs.63,97,71,157/- for financial year 2013-14 but as per statement in 26AS, the assessee had shown Rs.16,91,82,966/- from works contract bit it had disclosed its gross receipts in the profit and loss account only Rs.15,69,31,397/- resulting that the gross receipts is understated by Rs.1,22,51,569/- which should have been verified by the AO during scrutiny proceedings. The AO by way of notice u/s.142(1) initiated enquiry on this issue but after filing reply of the assessee in compliance to the said notice, the AO as an adjudicator and investigator did not bother to deliberate this issue in the assessment order and in our humble opinion,until and unless inquiry started by the AO is terminated to a logical and plausible end, such kind of enquiry has to be held as inadequate and insufficient inquiry on the issues, which makes the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
31. From the material placed before us, we also observe that from the service tax return of the assessee, the assessee had shown Rs.
Rs.8,45,95,617/- as gross value of service provided under the head 00440262 (transport of goods by road) and a sum of Rs.15,69,31,397/- as gross value of service provided under the head 00440402 (service provided in relation to mining of minerals, oil or gas) as is revealed from service tax return. However, the assessee had not accounted for the receipt of Rs.8,45,95,617/- in its income. Moreover, this amount of Rs.8,45,95,617/- had been grouped in "note 19"under the head "cost of materials consumed". Thus, the income credited to P&L account was understated to the tune of Rs.16,91,91,234/- which were not enquired by the AO.
P a g e 14 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5
32. We also observe that the issue of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,34,85,465/- and MAT credit of Rs.26,33,135/- was not under Limited Scrutiny, hence, the AO has not enquired into the matter while passing the assessment order. Although both the issues were not under limited scrutiny but from the spirit and mandate of section 263 of the Act, which provides revisional powers to Pr. CIT/CIT in the cases where the assessment order or any other proceedings under this Act, passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This section is itself a mini code wherein proceedings for revision has also been provided and as per this provision, the first and foremost requirement for invoking the revisional proceedings is that the ld. Pr. CIT/CIT shall call and examine the assessment records of any proceedings under this Act, which include scrutiny assessment records and if after applying his mind to such record or proceedings, he consider that any order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, then, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry, he deems necessary, pass such order thereon, as the circumstances of the case justify, which includes an order of enhancement or modification assessment or cancelling the assessment with a direction to pass fresh assessment order. Since both the issues were not considered by the AO in the original assessment order, Ld. Pr. CIT consider it necessary to direct the AO to enquiry the matter and reframe the assessment accordingly.
33. In the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [99 ITR 375], the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under :-
"It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before canceling the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return. The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Incometax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be adopted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis of the pleading and evidence which comes before it. The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. It is duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return which the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. It is because it is incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an inquiry prudent that the word "erroneous" in section P a g e 15 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 263 includes the failure to make such an enquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct
34. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also in the case of Duggal & Co. vs. CIT [220 ITR 456], held as under: " The ITO is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls further enquiry. It is incumbent on the AO to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an enquiry prudent. The work ' erroneous' in section 263 includes the failure to make such enquiry."
35. In the case of Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [205 ITR 45], the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court held as under :-
"that it was not quite certain whether the tress sold in the previous year relevant to the assessment year were trees standing at the time of acquisition or trees which grew on roots and trunk existing on the date of acquisition or on roots and trunks of trees existing at the time of acquisition and cut subsequently. This was a matter which had to be investigated by the Income-tax Officer after calling upon the assessee to furnish relevant data. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no such data before him in order to enable him to conclude that there was no cost of acquisition. It was also to be considered whether the spontaneous growth required any care or attention by way of protection from animals and the like and, if so, whether the assessee did not incur any cost in that regard. Any decision either way without considering these aspects would certainly be erroneous and any decision in favour of the assessee without considering these aspects would be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the order passed by the Tribunal sustaining the same as a whole were valid."
36. In the case of Addl. CIT vs. Mukur Corporation [111 ITR 312], Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held as under :-
"that the words "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' in section 263 have not been defined but they must mean that the orders of assessment challenged are such as are not in accordance with law, in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realized or cannot be realized. In the present case, it was obvious that the Income-tax Officer had committed an error in not making enquiry into the details as regards both the deductions and also that want of such enquiry had resulted in prejudice to the interests of the revenue. To this extent, the P a g e 16 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 initiation of action under section 263 by the Commissioner was quite proper."
37. In the case of CIT vs. South India Shipping Corpn. Ltd. [233 ITR 546], Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under :-
"Even assuming that the Income-tax Officer had called for the particulars, which were also furnished by the assessee, if the Income-tax Officer without probing into the matter further had allowed the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction and if the Commissioner on the basis of materials formed an opinion that the grant of allowance made by the officer was erroneous and not warranted by law, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act was not ousted. The Commissioner may not have recorded his final conclusion, but the question for exercising the power of revision by the Commissioner is whether the order of the Assessing Officer can be regarded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It may be erroneous in law or in fact. It may be erroneous in the sense that the Income-tax Officer had passed the order without properly conducting the inquiry in completion of the assessment and the order may also be erroneous when the expenditure allowed was against the provisions of law."
38. From the reading of all the above decisions of Hon'ble High Courts, it is evident that their Lordships have taken the unanimous view that the Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return. When the circumstances of the case are such so as to provoke an enquiry, it is his duty to make proper enquiry. Failure to make enquiry in such circumstances would make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. we concur with the submissions of Ld. CIT-DR that it was a case of lack of inquiry and there was no application of mind by AO on the issues which formed subject matter of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the action of Ld. Pr. CIT in exercising the said jurisdiction.
39. We also find that the case laws relied upon by ld A.R. of the assessee are distinguishable on facts.
40. In view of foregoing discussion, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of ld Pr. CIT by directing the AO to reframe the assessment after conducting proper enquiry on the issues and, therefore, we affirm the same.
13. Further in the case of M/s Akash Ganga Promoters & Developers, ITA No.164/CTK/2019, order dated 18.12.2019, wherein the similar issue of limited scrutiny is involved, however, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee because in this case the AO has made sufficient, P a g e 17 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 adequate and proper enquiry and thereafter took both the issues to a logical conclusion by way of adjudication and deliberation in the assessment order and he was satisfied that there was no escapement of revenue, therefore, there was no room for further enquiry by the Pr.CIT. For the sake of convenience, we would like to reproduce the relevant observations of the Tribunal in this regard, are as under :-
15. On careful consideration of rival submissions, first of all, we may point out that undisputedly, the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 was selected for limited scrutiny on two points i.e. (i) real estimate business with high closing stock (verify whether assessee has adopted percentage completion method) and
(ii) mismatch in sales turnover reported in audit report and ITR.
16. It is also not in dispute that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire to the assessee both on 1.8.2016, which were duly served and complied by the assessee by way of filing replies on 19.8.2016, 30.11.2016, 19.1.2017 and 20.3.2017. From the replies of the assessee placed at assessee's paper book at pages 50-51, it is clearly discernible that the assessee explained that in its profit and loss account, the total turnover has been shown at Rs.2,31,60,000/- and the same figure has been reflected in the tax audit report in Cl.40 of Form 3CD under the head P&L, the total turnover has been shown as same figure and, therefore, there is no mismatch in the sale turnover shown in the tax audit report and profit and loss account filed alongwith the return of income. From the reply dated 19.1.2017, we clearly note that the assessee submitted copy of audit report, complete ITR form & profit and loss account to substantiate sales turnover figure which was accepted by the AO in the assessment order after due deliberation done at page 1 para 3 & 4 of the assessment order. Further from para 5 of the assessment order, we also gather that the AO, as a result of enquiry and verification made by him, noted that the assessee has adopted percentage completion method and has estimated profit @ 3.24% of the turnover and most of the inventory was not sold and was in stock, the work-in-progress as on 31.3.2015 was thus on a higher side. In view of above, we are satisfied that the AO has made enquiry, verification and examination on both the points for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny and from the impugned order passed by ld Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act, it is also ample clear that there is no allegation by him against the assessment order that the AO has not made any enquiry on any of the issues for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny.
17. In view of foregoing discussion, we reach to a logical conclusion that the AO has made sufficient, adequate and proper enquiry and thereafter took both the issues to a logical conclusion by way of adjudication and deliberation in the assessment order. Therefore, P a g e 18 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 the impugned assessment cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
18. Now, we proceed to adjudicate the next contention of the assessee that the p- ld Pr. CIT proceeded to initiate revisional proceedings, issued notice and passed the impugned order u/s.263 of the Act without application of mind on the proposal put forward by the Assessing Officer and draft notice prepared by the AO issued to the assessee.
19. In the present case the Assessing Officer passed limited scrutiny assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act on 21.3.2017 and assessment proceedings terminated on the said date. From the order sheet of the Assessing Officer placed at page 52 of paper book vide dated 14.1.2019, we observe that subsequently, the AO. i.e. JCIT, Ragne-2, Sambalpur vide letter dated 5.7.2018 send a proposal to ACIT, Sambalpur for initiation of proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. From the second para of said order sheet, we note that the ACIT, Sambalpur mentioned that on analysis of the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee has shown profit @ 3.24% on total turnover which is too low. Ld ACIT further noted that the AO asked the assessee to produce the documentary evidences related to the business of the assessee like bills & vouchers and details & documents of sale of flats etc but the assessee failed to submit the same before the AO during the scrutiny assessment. The ACIT further stated that as the reason for CASS is real estate business with high closing stock, the information about estimated cost of construction of the project, estimated sale value of the project, selling price of individual flats, period of construction etc should have been examined before completion of scrutiny assessment. But due to non-submission of the required details by the assessee, the AO estimated net profit @ 4.24% instead of 3.24% as declared by the assessee and completed the scrutiny assessment. In para 3.4 of the said note sheet, ld ACIT noted that in the interest of revenue, as proposed by the ld JCIT, Range-2, Sambalpur, revision u/s.263 may be initiated before 31.3.2019. With these observations, the ld ACIT sent draft notice u/s.263 of the Act to Pr. CIT, Sambalpur. The ld. Pr. CIT has approved the proposal given by ld ACIT on the same date i.e. 14.1.2019 and thereafter notice u/s.263 of the Act has been issued on the very same date to the assessee show causing for initiation of revisional proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. For proper adjudication of this contention, we find it necessary and appropriate to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which reads as follows: "
263. (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the P a g e 19 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment."
20. From the spirit and mandate of section 263 of the Act, which provides revisional powers to Pr. CIT/CIT in the cases where the assessment order or any other proceedings under this Act, passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This section is itself a mini code wherein proceedings for revision has also been provided and as per this provision, the first and foremost requirement for invoking the revisional proceedings is that the ld. Pr. CIT/CIT shall call and examine the assessment records of any proceedings under this Act, which include scrutiny assessment records and if after applying his mind to such record of proceedings, he consider that any order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, then, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry, he deems necessary, pass such order thereon, as the circumstances of the case justify, which includes an order of enhancement or modification assessment or cancelling the assessment with a direction to pass fresh assessment order. In the present case, from the order sheet dated 14.1.2019, it is vivid that the JCIT, Range-2, Sambalpur sent a proposal for initiation of revisional proceedings u/s.263 of the Act to ACIT, Sambalpur and ld ACIT, Sambalpur after making observation regarding requirement of examination of certain issues forwarded the proposal to Ld. PCIT alongwith draft notice u/s.263 which was approved by ld PCIT in a manner in which administrative actions are proved. Hence, we are compelled to hold that the initiation of revisional proceedings, issue of notice has been done on the proposal of JCIT, Range-2, Sambalpur through ACIT, Sambalpur and mandate of procedure as provided in section 263 of the Act has not been followed and on this count, the impugned order u/s.263 of the Act also become unsustainable. While taking this view, we respectfully follow the order of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Manish Chirania order of Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of Span Overseas Ltd and order ITAT Mumbai 'F' Bench in the case of Vinay Pratap Thacker (supra).
21. On the above foregoing discussion, we reach to a logical conclusion that the ld JCIT Range-2, Sambalpur prepared a proposal for revisional proceedings u/s.263 and ld ACIT, Sambalpur in the order sheet dated 14.1.2019 created an explanation from the AO that the AO should have asked the assessee produce documentary evidence related to its business like bills and vouchers, details of P a g e 20 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 documents of sale of flats but the assessee failed to submit the same before the AO during the scrutiny assessment. Therefore, he alleged that in real estate business with high closing stock, the information about estimated cost of construction of the project, estimated sale value of the project, selling price of individual flats, period of construction etc should have been examined before completion of scrutiny assessment but the ld ACIT failed to consider that it was a case of limited scrutiny only on two points and from the assessment order dated 21.3.2017, it is clearly discernible that the AO has made enquiry and deliberation on both the points and as per CBDT Circulars (supra), he is not allowed to travel beyond the ambit of the points for which, case was selected for limited scrutiny. Therefore, the ld ACIT, who was not having revisional power u/s.263 wrongly alleged that the AO has not made enquiry on certain points. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the conclusions drawn by ld PCIT in paras 10 & 11 of the impugned order and hold that the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and the AO has made sufficient enquiries, investigations and examination on both the points. Consequently, the revisional proceedings, issue of notice and impugned order u/s.263 of the Act is quashed."
9. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had the duty even in the limited scrutiny to ask for converting the same into full scrutiny when he come across the issues which required or which would have resulted in addition and consequently, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It was the submission that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Sushant Kumar Choudhury (supra) was subsequent decision and in the said decision the earlier decision of this Bench in the case of Akash Ganga Promoters and Developers (supra) had been considered and distinguished. It was the submission that it was a later decision which should apply. It was the submission that in the event that this Bench is unwilling to follow the decision in the case of Sri Sushant Kuamr Choudhury (supra), then the P a g e 21 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 matter should be referred to the a Large Bench in view of the decision of ITAT Cochin Third Member in the case of ACIT vs Chandragiri Construction Co(2021) 21 taxmann.com 167 (Coch.) (TM). It was the prayer that the order of the Pr. CIT be upheld or the matter be referred to a Larger Bench.
10. We have considered the rival submissions. The crux of the issue in the present case is whether the Pr. CIT could use his revisionary powers to direct to make the addition by holding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on issues which are not connected issues to the issues which have been raised in the limited scrutiny in an assessment proceedings. Here one must clearly understand that the fetters have been placed on the assessing authority in respect of limited scrutiny by various circulars issued by CBDT in Instruction No.7/14 dated 26.9.2014 and Instruction no.20/15 dt.19.12.2015. In the Instructions, it is categorically mentioned that in the case of Limited Scrutiny, the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the issues which have been directed under the limited scrutiny. Once such fetters are placed on the AO in respect of limited scrutiny, the AO is barred from looking into any other issues other than those issues which are raised in the limited scrutiny. There could be such cases, where the AO while looking into issues which have been raised in the limited scrutiny, connected issues come up which could result in under assessment or escapement of assessment. It is in such cases, the AO is to take permission from the CCIT/Pr. CIT to expand the scope from P a g e 22 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. Once such permission is granted and complete scrutiny is permitted, everything is opened to the AO to examine.
Thus, in order to convert into a completed from limited scrutiny, connected issues should come up from limited scrutiny to give powers of the AO is to expand and get the permission for the complete scrutiny. In no other cases, the AO can go beyond what is directed in the limited scrutiny.
11. In the present case, the limited scrutiny was in relation to excess liability shown in respect of trade payable and second issue was disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act. The show cause notice in respect of 263 shows that the issue was in respect of adoption of FIFO method of valuation of its closing stock. This issue is nowhere connected to the issue of excess liability shown or disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act. This is absolutely fresh unconnected issues, which the Pr.CIT has picked up. A revision u/s.263 is permissible when an assessment order is shown to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions are compulsorily to be there. In the present case, admittedly, the assessment order is a limited scrutiny assessment and no error in respect of the said assessment order passed in respect of limited scrutiny issues have been pointed out by the Pr. CIT for the purpose of invoking the powers u./s.263 of the Act. On this ground itself, the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 is liable to be quashed and we do so.
P a g e 23 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5
12. Coming to the issue 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 distinguishable. Therefore, the prayer of the ld CIT DR that the matter be referred to Larger Bench also does not survive insofar as the facts of the present case and in the said decision in the case of Sri Sushanta Kumar Choudhury (supra) is fully distinguishable.
13. This view of ours in respect of revision u/s.263 vis-à-vis limited scrutiny is also supported by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Chennai in the case of Smt. Padmavathi referred to (supra) which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court as also the decision in the case of Balvinder Kumar and Rajani Venkata Naga Annavarapu Narayana (supra) by Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT Delhi and ITAT Cuttack in the case of Akash Ganga Promoters and Developers (supra). In the circumstances, the P a g e 24 | 25 ITA No.128/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-1 5 revisionary order passed by Pr. CIT is found to be erroneous and same is quashed.
14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/8/2022.
Sd/- sd/-
(Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Cuttack; Dated 18/8/2022
B.K.Parida, SPS (OS)
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant : M/s. Shark Mines & Minerals
Pvt Ltd., A/62, BDA Housing Complex,
Palaspalli, Bhubaneswar
2. The respondent: Pr. CIT, Cuttack
3. The CIT(A)-, Cuttack
4. DR, ITAT, Cuttack
5. Guard file.
//True Copy//
By order
Sr.Pvt.secretary
ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 25 | 25