Case Law Details
Atul Gupta Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
It is an undisputed fact that the instant case was picked up for ‘Limited Scrutiny’ on two specific issues as reproduced in Para 2.0 above. It is also an undisputed fact that neither any permission was sought by the AO to expand the scope of limited scrutiny in the instant case nor such permission was ever granted by the Ld. Pr.CIT/CIT in this case to inquire into any other issue during assessment proceedings.
The AO, while passing the assessment order, has not drawn any adverse inference against the assessee on either of the two issues on which the case was picked up for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessee had claimed TDS credit of Rs.1,55,000/- u/s 194IA of the Act and had declared sales consideration of Rs.1,55,00,000/- in his ITR.
The rate of TDS during this period was 1% under Section 194IA of the Act and the amount of TDS in this case is Rs. 1,55,000/- which fully corresponds to the amount of R.1,55,00,000/- declared by the assesse in his ITR. Thus, it cannot be said that the sales consideration declared in ITR is less than the one reported in FORM 26Q filed by buyer. Even the AO has not disputed this fact in the assessment order.
Likewise, no adverse inference has been drawn by him against the assessee on the issue of unsecured loans. In our considered opinion, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue are not correct and there was no valid basis for the AO to inquire into other issues while conducting a limited scrutiny, without taking the mandatory permission from the Ld. Pr.CIT.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
