AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of purchasing the sales of electronics components. He has filed his return of income on 18.08.2015, declaring total income of Rs. 5,07,98,490/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, and thereafter, it was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS on the issue of "increase in capital". Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 19.09.2016, assessee entered appearance and during the course of hearing, the assessee was required to explain substantial increase in the capital account. Requisite details were filed by the assessee. Vide order dated 16/8/2017, as could be seen from the impugned order, the income of the assessee was assessed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by the assessee. The assessee furnished written submissions explaining his computation. Ld. PCIT, however, did not agree with the assessee and passed the revisionary order on 20.12.2019, setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with the direction to make fresh assessment as per law after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that there is no dispute that the case of assessee was picked up for assessment under the category of limited scrutiny; that the Ld. PCIT did not call for record, but went by the Revenue done by the learner joint Commissioner thereby abdicating his jurisdiction which resulted in lack of application of mind on the part of the Ld. PCIT; that the Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1906/Mum/2019 and Sonali Hemant Bhavsar vs.PCITINITA No.742/M/2019 in support of his contentions. 7. Ld. DR placing reliance on the impugned order and submitted that when there was patent error on the face of the computation of income, failure of the learned Assessing Officer to look into that aspect by calling for the relevant material ended up in miscarriage of justice and therefore the Ld. PCIT is justified in interfering with the same under section 263 of the Act. 8. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. There is no dispute that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny under the category of limited scrutiny. This fact is established from the assessment order and also the notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rutiny' or 'Complete Scrutiny' through notices issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). The procedure for handling 'Limited Scrutiny' cases shall be as under: (a) .... (b) The Questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act in 1Limited Scrutiny * cases shallre nut in confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked upforscrutiny. Further, the scope of enquiry shall be restricted to the Limited Scrutiny' issues. CBDT Instruction No. 5/2016 "4. It is further clarified that in cases under 'Limited Scrutiny \ the scrutiny assessment proceedings would initially be confined only to issues under 'Limited Scrutiny' and Questionnaires, enquiry, inves....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r for limited scrutiny and on that aspect the assessment order in this case is in accordance with the instructions governing the field. In such circumstances it has to be seen whether the Ld. PCIT is justified in holding the assessment order to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the learned Assessing Officer not considering the aspects which are beyond the purview of limited scrutiny. 10. In the Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA 1013 AND 1635/PUN/2015, Pune Bench of the Tribunal held, that, "40. Now, coming to the aspect of book profits which was considered by the Commissioner and the order of the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r limited scrutiny as per the AIR information. We thus not being able to concur with the view taken by the fJr. CIT that the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 10.10.2016is erroneous, therefore, set aside his order and restore the order passed by the A.O. As we have quashed the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 on the ground of invalid assumption of jurisdiction by him, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and there in adjudicating the contentions advanced by the Id. A. Ron the merits of the case, which thus are left open." 11. Similarly, is the view taken consistently by the benches of this Tribunal in the other two cases also, relied upon by the assessee. In the circumstances, in view of the consistent view tak....