CIT lacks jurisdiction under section 263 to challenge unsecured loan acceptance in limited scrutiny cases

ITAT Indore quashed CIT's revision order u/s 263 challenging AO's acceptance of unsecured loans. Court held CIT lacked jurisdiction as unsecured loan verification wasn't part of limited scrutiny under CASS. AO had conducted adequate inquiry within scope of limited scrutiny, obtaining documentary evidence establishing lender's identity, creditworthiness, and transaction genuineness. CIT cannot make roving inquiry beyond limited scrutiny parameters or remand matter without conclusive findings that AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Assessee successfully proved transaction authenticity through bank statements and lender's financial records showing sufficient reserves.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of invoking Section 263 for lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. Scope of limited scrutiny under CASS (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection).

Summary:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Pr. CIT under Section 263
The Assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT, arguing that the order passed u/s 263 was "illegal, void and without jurisdiction." The Tribunal noted that the Pr. CIT can invoke Section 263 only if the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. It was emphasized that the Pr. CIT must conduct an inquiry and record a finding on merits that the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in NTPC vs. CIT, supporting the Assessee's contention that the Pr. CIT must first make an inquiry before invoking Section 263.

Issue 2: Validity of Invoking Section 263 for Lack of Inquiry by AO
The Assessee argued that the AO had conducted due inquiry during the assessment proceedings, and therefore, Section 263 could not be invoked. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed issued notices and called for details regarding the unsecured loan from M/s Nikita Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. The Assessee provided the necessary documents, including confirmations from lenders and bank statements. The Tribunal held that the AO had made adequate inquiries, and the Pr. CIT's order lacked jurisdiction as it was based on the assumption that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries.

Issue 3: Scope of Limited Scrutiny under CASS
The Assessee contended that the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS, focusing on specific issues like mismatch in amounts paid to related persons and high-interest expenditure against new capital. The Tribunal agreed that the Pr. CIT could not invoke Section 263 on issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny unless the limited scrutiny was converted into complete scrutiny following the prescribed procedure. The Tribunal cited the CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2016, which clarifies that the scope of limited scrutiny cannot be expanded without converting it into complete scrutiny. The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order was invalid as it went beyond the issues identified for limited scrutiny.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the Pr. CIT's order passed u/s 263, holding it invalid for lack of jurisdiction and for going beyond the scope of limited scrutiny under CASS. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries, and the Pr. CIT could not invoke Section 263 without first making an inquiry and recording a finding that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue.

---