Case Law Details
Sanjiv Kumar Mittal Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi)
On appraisal of the evidences placed before us, we find that vide notice dated 10.08.2018 specific queries were raised by the AO in relation to the issue raised for the purposes of limited scrutiny, i.e., ‘Payment of tax in cash during demonetization period’. In response, the assessee has filed replies explaining the relevant facts in this regard. The Assessing Officer was satisfied with the answers made available in response to allegation towards payment of tax in cash. Thus, in the absence of any error in the action of the Assessing Officer qua the issue of limited scrutiny, the revisional action in the instant case is unsustainable in law.
We also find merit in the plea of the assessee that having regard to CBDT instruction Nos. 7/2015, 20/2015 & 5/2016 and also CBDT letter dated 30.11.2017, the AO was not entitled to go beyond the reasons for selection of matter for limited scrutiny. As a corollary, it is not open to the PCIT to pass revisionary order and remit the matter to the Assessing Officer on other aspects by rendering assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. This is the view consistently taken by the co-ordinate benches in several decisions, some of which are noted earlier. The action of the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act thus cannot be approved on this parameter also.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak [‘PCIT’ in short] dated 19.03.2022 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) whereby the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 04.11.2019 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2017-18 was sought to be set aside for reframing assessment in terms of supervisory directions.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
