Case Law Details
Sahita Construction Company Vs Pr.CIT (ITAT Indore)
Perusal of records shows that assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for verification of “contract receipts/fees mismatch, sales turnover mismatch and tax credit mismatch”. The issue of payment to contractors and tax deducted thereon was never a part of reasons for the limited Therefore, there was no occasion for the Ld. AO to examine this issue for payment to contractors. It is well settled that in case of limited scrutiny matter Ld. AO has to work within the parameters observed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes; instruction dated 29.12.2015 and various other circular issued in this behalf. Since the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on certain issues and Ld. AO has examined these issues and framed the assessments and the issue of examination of payment to contractors was not a part of the limited scrutiny reasons, in our considered view, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and also erred in holding that assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Tribunal has held that when the assessment is taken up for limited scrutiny, Ld. Pr. CIT/CIT cannot hold the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in respect of issue which was not a reason for selection of the case for limited scrutiny.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT INDORE
The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Assessee is directed against the order u/s 263 of the Act of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short CIT-1, Bhopal dated 25.03.2021 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 11.09.2017 by ITO- 3(3)-Bhopal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
