| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 8372 (Ctk-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
Pr.CIT failed to consider that it was a case of limited scrutiny only on two points and from the assessment order it was clearly discernible that AO had made enquiry and deliberation on both the points and as per CBDT Instruction No. 5/2016, dated 14-7-2016 he was not allowed to travel beyond the ambit of points for which, case was selected for limited scrutiny, accordingly, assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - Allegation of lack of enquiry on AO's part as regards issues not covered in limited scrutiny assessment -
AO passed limited scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3). Pr. CIT initiated revisional proceedings and held assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that assessee has shown net sales of flats at Rs. 2,49,60,000 in P&L account but no details of parties/persons to whom sales of flats were made have been furnished. Also, assessee had shown to have received advance of Rs. 2,58,08,000 from customers but AO had not verified in detail about genuineness and creditworthiness of parties and there was mismatch in sales turnover reported in audit report and return of income filed by the assessee, which led to difference of Rs. 18,00,000.Held: Pr.CIT failed to consider that it was a case of limited scrutiny only on two points and from the assessment order it was clearly discernible that AO had made enquiry and deliberation on both the points and as per CBDT Instruction No. 5/2016, dated 14-7-2016 he was not allowed to travel beyond the ambit of points for which, case was selected for limited scrutiny. Accordingly, assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2015-16
IN THE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|