Case Law Details
Meena Shirish Kotwal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
In this case the very basis of initiation of scrutiny assessment is the large investment made by the firm wherefore the appellant is one of the signatory partners. However it shall be worthy to note that, for the impugned year the appellant has made no investment in her individual capacity so has to trigger any basis for scrutiny assessment on the prescribed criteria of investment, thus the very basis of initiation of scrutiny in the appellant’s case fails, consequently the impugned assessment stand with no legs in the eyes of law, and we hold as such in the light of ratio laid down by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of “CIT Vs Best Plastics (P) Ltd” reported in 295 ITR 256, whereby their lordship laid a proposition that;
“Where the guidelines are laid down for selection of cases for scrutiny and if the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny in violation of CBDT Instructions, then the assessment order has to be set aside”
Further, it shall not be out of the box to quote the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in “Bombay Cloth Syndicate Vs CIT” reported at 214 ITR 210 whereby their lordship have held that, the instruction issued by the mother body i.e. CBDT undisputedly are binding on the department and any action in violation thereof renders it as untenable in law, consequently in the extant case, assessment been carried out in violation of instruction issued by CBDT deserves to be quashed, ergo we set-aside the first appellate order passed u/s 250 and quash the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act as bad in law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
