TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 68 of the Act in the proceedings initiated for limited scrutiny is without jurisdiction and bad in law." 3. The Ld. AR drawing our attention to the aforesaid ground submitted that the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the AO to have expanded the assessment from 'Limited Scrutiny' to 'Complete Scrutiny' without following the procedure as laid by the CBDT Circular No. 20/2015 dated 29.12.2015; and subsequent instruction on the same dated 14.07.2016 (para 4) and circular dated 30.11.2017 (para 3). According to Ld. AR, the AO had issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on 20.09.2017 wherein it was clearly stated that the assessee's case was selected by CASS (computer aided scrutiny se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT concerned. However, such an approval shall be accorded by the Pr. CIT/CIT in writing after being satisfied about merits of the issues(s) necessitating 'Complete Scrutiny' in that particular case. Such cases shall be monitored by the Range head concerned. The procedure indicated at points (a), (b) and (c) above shall no longer remain binding in such cases. (For this present purpose, 'Metro charges' would mean Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad)." 4. According to the Ld. AR, from a bare reading of the aforesaid instruction of the CBDT which has been issued by it u/s. 119 of the Act, it is clear that the AO while issuing questionnaire u/s. 142(1) of the Act in 'Limited Scrutiny' cases shall remain confined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19 (AY: 2014-15) order dated 05.12.2019; Mumbai Bench decision in M/s. Nitin Killawala Vs. ITO, ITA No. 1611/M/2013 (AY: 2008-09) order dated 16.09.2015; Chindagarh bench decision in Shri Vijay Kumar Vs. ITO, ITA No. 434/Chd/2019 (AY: 2014-15) order dated 12.09.2019. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR contended that the issue raised by the Ld. AR has not been raised before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, this issue according to him, cannot be agitated for the first time before the Tribunal. According to the Ld. DR, the CBDT circular dated 30.11.2017 (para 1) specifically states the reason why this 'Limited Scrutiny' has been advised in certain cases. According to him, this is to prevent AO from going on a fishing enquiry to harass the assessee. Acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT in writing is without jurisdiction; and, therefore, this being a legal issue which if found to be correct would go to the root of the addition made of Rs. 59,19,909/- as raised in ground no.2 which, according to him, can be raised at any forum as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme court in NTPC Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) and therefore, he wants us to adjudicate the legal issue. He also pointed out that in the 143(2) notice this issue regarding addition u/s. 68 of the Act was never raised in the "Limited Scrutiny notice" dated 20.09.2017 wherein the AO has clearly stated that assessee's case has been selected only for Limited Scrutiny on one issue i.e. whether stock has been valued correctly or not? So, according to him, the AO could not have e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... valued correctly or not. According to Ld. AR, the AO could not have expanded the jurisdiction/assessment from 'Limited Scrutiny' to complete scrutiny without following the procedure as stipulated in the CBDT Circular No. 20/2015 dated 29.12.2015 and other CBDT Circulars on the subject dated 14.07.2016 and 30.11.2017. We note that the AO has not taken approval in writing from the Pr. CIT/CIT in this case before he ventured to expand the scope of assessment from 'Limited Scrutiny' to complete scrutiny as prescribed in the CBDT circular which is admittedly binding on him. A perusal of the order sheet placed at pages 5 to 9 of the paper book does not indicate that the AO has taken the approval of the Pr. CIT/CIT for expanding the assessment fr....