Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 46 (0.39 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Pioneer Carbon Co. Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai on 11 July, 2023
143(3) of the Act. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that though
the case of the assessee company was selected for "limited scrutiny" for the
purpose of verifying the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act regarding the
amount share premium that it had received during the year but
additions/disallowances were made on certain extraneous issues which had never
formed the basis for picking up the case for "limited scrutiny". Carrying his
contention further, the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the
additions/disallowance which were made by the A.O while framing the assessment
vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 28.12.2017. Backed by the aforesaid facts,
the Ld. AR submitted that as it was not the case that the A.O had extended the
scope of the scrutiny assessment by obtaining approval of the Pr.CIT, therefore,
the A.O was clearly divested of his jurisdiction to have made the aforesaid
disallowances/additions while framing the assessment. It was submitted by the Ld.
AR that as per CBDT Instruction No.20 of 2015, dated 29.12.2015, scrutiny in the
cases which are selected through CASS has to be confined only to the specific
24
Pioneer Carbon Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bhilai (C.G.)
ITA Nos. 369 & 370/RPR/2023
reasons and issues for which the case has been picked up for limited scrutiny. The
Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the following judicial
pronouncements:
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Su-Raj Diamond Dealers Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Pr. Cit - 11 , Mumbai on 27 November, 2019
10. After giving a thoughtful consideration, it transpires, that as
stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, as the case of the assessee was
selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for certain specific reasons
and, examination of its claim for loss from derivatives was not one of
those reasons for which the case was selected for such limited
scrutiny assessment, therefore, the Pr. CIT could not have held the
order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous, for the reason
that the latter while framing the assessment had failed to verify the
assessee's claim of loss from derivatives i.e, an issue which was
extraneous to the reasons for which the case was selected for
limited scrutiny under CASS. In sum and substance, now when
pursuant to the selection of the assessee's case for limited scrutiny
under CASS the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer was
circumscribed qua only those issues which had formed the reason
for picking up of its case for such scrutiny, therefore, the failure on
his part in not making verification or examination of any other
extraneous issue by no means could have justifiably formed a
reason for holding the order passed by him as erroneous in so far it
was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s 263 of the Act. As
per CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015, dated 29.12.2015, scrutiny in
cases which are selected through CASS has to be confined only to
the specific reasons and issues for which the case has been picked
up for scrutiny. Accordingly, now when the Assessing Officer
pursuant to the selection of the case of the assessee for limited
scrutiny through CASS was not vested with any jurisdiction for
adverting to and therein dealing with issues which did not form part
of the reasons for which the case was picked up for limited scrutiny
assessment under CASS, thereupon, the Pr. CIT could not have
justifiably stepped in to hold the order passed by the Assessing
Officer u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 21.04.2016 as erroneous, for the
reason, that he had failed to verify and examine such unrelated
issues while framing the assessment. Our aforesaid view is fortified
by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case
of M/s Su-Raj Diamond Dealers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Pr. CIT, (2020) 203 TTJ
137 (Mum.) (of which one of us i.e., Judicial Member was a party),
wherein it was held as under :