TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect Taxes issued Circulars Nos. 9 and 10, i.e., for corporate assessee and for non-corporate assessee, respectively. The relevant provision appearing from Circular No. 10 reads as follows: "The process of selection of cases for scrutiny of returns filed up to March 31, 2004, must be completed by October 15, 2004. For returns filed during the current financial year 2004-2005, the selection of cases for scrutiny will have to be completed within three months of the date of filing of the return." In this case, the return was filed by the assessee on October 29, 2004, and the notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act was issued on July 14, 2005. Evidently, the notice was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in its judgment and order dated January 23, 2009, in the case of Subhasish Roy v. ITO followed the judgment in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd. v. Deputy CIT and held as follows : "After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of the materials available on record and keeping in view of the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd. v. Deputy CIT reported in [2008] 8 DTR (A. T.) 183 (Bilaspur) dated February 15, 2008, wherein it was held that scrutiny of the case having been done in violation of the Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 9 of 2004, dated September 20, 2004, the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes cannot be construed to mean to have altered the period of limitation provided in section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act. She added that the circular was issued for the purpose of expediting the process of assessment. The object was to achieve the target laid down in the Central Action Plan. The object, according to her, by no means, was to permit evasion of tax by the unscrupulous assessees. She added that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has provided the time for selection of cases for scrutiny. The Central Board of Direct Taxes did not restrict the time for issuance of a notice. She has produced official records to show that the case was selected for scrutiny on July 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he time for selection of the cases for scrutiny within a period of three months, it cannot be said that the selection in this case was made within the aforesaid period. Admittedly, the return was filed on October 29, 2004, and the case was selected for scrutiny on July 6, 2005. It may be pointed out that Mrs. Gutgutia was, in fact, reiterating the views taken by the learned Tribunal which we also quoted above. By any process of reasoning, it was not open for the learned Tribunal to come to a finding that the Department acted within the four corners of Circulars Nos. 9 and 10 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The circulars were evidently violated. The circulars are binding upon the Department under section 119 of the Income-tax Ac....