| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 8004 (Mum-Trib) : (2020) 203 TTJ 0137 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
As AO had aptly confined himself to the issues for which the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, therefore, no infirmity can be attributed to his order, for the reason, that he had failed to dwell upon certain other issues which did not form part of the reasons for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS.
|
Revision under section 263 - Jurisdiction of Pr. CIT - Assessment selected for scrutiny by CASS on limited issues - Non-examination of other issues by AO
It was observed by Pr.CIT, that as the case of the assessee was selected for 'Limited scrutiny' under CASS for two reasons, viz. (i). Large other expenses claimed in the P&L A/c.; and (ii). Low income in comparison to High Loans/advance/Investment in shares, therefore, the AO had no occasion to carry out a comprehensive scrutiny of the issues relating to 'closing stock' in the course of the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT holding a view that assessment order passed by AO under section 143(3), dt. 8-12-2016 was erroneous, insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, therefore, 'set aside' his order, with a direction to examine the issue relating to 'closing stock' Held: No infirmity could be attributed to the assessment framed by the AO on the ground that he had failed to deal with other issues which though did not fall within the realm of the limited reasons for which the CASS was selected for scrutiny assessment. In other words, the Pr.CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be permitted to traverse beyond the jurisdiction that was vested with the AO while framing the assessment. As the AO had aptly confined himself to the issues for which the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, therefore, no infirmity can be attributed to his order, for the reason, that he had failed to dwell upon certain other issues which did not form part of the reasons for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Tribunal thus not being able to concur with the view taken by the Pr. CIT that the order passed by the AO under section 143(3), was erroneous, therefore, his order was restored and the order passed by the AO was restored.
REFERRED : Sonali Hemant Bhavsar v. Pr. CIT-29 [ITA No. 742/Mum/2019, dt.17-5-2019 (Mumbai)] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 4092 (Mum-Trib), Sanjeev Kr. Khemka v. Pr. CIT-15, Kolkata [ITA No. 1361/Kol/2016 (Kolkata)] and Gift Land Handicrafts v. CIT [(2007) 108 TTJ 312 (Del-Trib) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1082 (Del-Trib)].
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2014-15
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|