PCIT cannot expand limited scrutiny scope through section 263 revision for issues outside original assessment parameters

ITAT Rajkot held that PCIT cannot enhance the scope of limited scrutiny proceedings through section 263 revision. The case involved a Co-operative bank's interest income claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). While the original limited scrutiny assessment covered specific issues like investments/advances/loans and disallowances under sections 40(9) and 40A(7), PCIT attempted to revise the assessment order regarding section 80P deduction, which was outside the original scope. The tribunal ruled this impermissible, stating PCIT cannot fault an assessment order on issues not covered by limited scrutiny when the Assessing Officer could not have examined such issues. Decision favored the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issue of whether the order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 under Section 263 of the Act, setting aside the assessment order under Section 143(3) and directing de-novo assessment for verification of the eligibility of deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest earned from a Co-operative Bank, was valid.

Details of the Judgment:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot, setting aside the assessment order under Section 143(3) on the ground that the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act was not eligible. The Ld. PCIT contended that the interest income received from the Co-operative bank was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, leading to the differential amount issue.

The Counsel for the assessee argued that the claim of deduction under Section 80P was beyond the scope of limited scrutiny assessment and, therefore, the order of the AO was not erroneous. Reference was made to previous decisions of Rajkot ITAT to support this argument. Additionally, it was contended that the interest income received from the Co-operative Bank was indeed eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, citing relevant judicial precedents.

Furthermore, it was highlighted that recent judicial pronouncements supported the eligibility of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from Cooperative Banks. The argument was strengthened by referring to specific cases and judgments that upheld the benefit of deduction under this section for income earned from investments with cooperative banks.

The Tribunal agreed with the contentions of the assessee's counsel, stating that the PCIT could not enhance the scope of limited scrutiny proceedings by resorting to proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. It was emphasized that the PCIT could not find fault with the assessment order on an issue not covered by the limited scrutiny assessment. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under Section 263 and held that the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

Separate Judgment:
The judgment was delivered by Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member, and Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member.

---