TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for AY 2015-16 by exercising his revisional jurisdiction contended that the Ld. PCIT erred in invoking the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act without satisfying the condition precedent as contemplated u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, according to Ld. A.R, the impugned order of Ld. PCIT is bad in law and therefore, being without jurisdiction has to be quashed. According to Ld. A.R, in this case for this assessment year, the assessee's case was taken up for limited scrutiny under CASS which fact can be discerned from page 19 of PB and he drew our attention to the notice issued on 29.07.2016 u/s 143(2) of the Act informing that the assessee's case has been selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. From a perusal of the same, we note that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T has stated in his SCN as under: 5. Pursuant to SCN of Ld. PCIT, the assessee had filed its reply objecting to the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction by Ld. PCIT vide letter dated 29.01.2020 and 31.01.2020. A copy of which is seen placed at 28 to 42 of PB in which the assessee has clearly stated that the assessee's case for AY 2015-16 was selected for scrutiny assessment only for the limited scrutiny under CASS for the three (3) items discussed supra and issue of deduction of Rs. 10,02,198/- was not figuring in and in fact the amount incurred on account of Insurance premium to the Flats at Mumbai was only Rs. 2,198/- which was duly added back by the assessee to the income while computing the 'income from business and profession' a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AR, the impugned action of Ld. PCIT by exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on this issue i.e. Insurance Premium (Keyman Policy) of Rs. 10,00,000/- is akin to Ld. PCIT trying to do indirectly what the AO could not have done directly. It was brought to our notice that even though these material facts were brought the notice of Ld. PCIT, he did not drop the proceedings. Therefore, he pleaded that impugned action of Ld PCIT may be quashed. Per-Contra, the Ld CIT DR, fully supported the impugned order and submitted that the even though Assessing Officer has to conduct scrutiny only on the issues raised by the CASS limited scrutiny, however if the A.O wanted to enlarge the scope of inquiry, then he has to take up the matter with the jurisd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... because the AO was justified in not enquiring in to the issue of Insurance Premium (Keyman Policy) of Rs. 10,00,000/-, since the AO has gone as per the dictum of CBDT circular on the subject. Therefore, the AO's action/ omission of not looking into the issue of Insurance Premium (Keyman Policy) of Rs. 10,00,000/- cannot be termed as erroneous . And, therefore, the Ld. PCIT could not have invoked revisional jurisdiction since AO's omission not to look into the issue of keyman policy was in consonance with the CBDT dictum on the subject and so it cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue; and the impugned action of Ld. PCIT is akin to do indirectly what the AO could not have done directly. Thus it is noted that Ld. PCIT has ve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amining of the records, we find that the Ld. CIT in his impugned order u/s 263 of the Act has exceeded his jurisdiction while holding the order of AO as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In view of the above we hold that the ld. CIT has in his order u/s. 263 of the Act exceeded the jurisdiction by holding the order of AO as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on those items which are not emanating from the AIR. Thus, we are inclined to adjudicate only those matters which are emanating from the AIR as discussed above." 7. And to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd. in ITA NO. 812/Kol/2019 for AY 2014-15 dated 31.01.2020 which is placed at page 62 to 70 wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest on loans, payment of LIC, Commission & brokerage income etc. It is the case of the assessee that in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO has travelled beyond the points of the AIR on the basis of which the case of scrutiny was selected under CASS module. It is the plea of the assessee that when no addition/disallowance can be made beyond the points mentioned in AIR in the assessment proceedings then same is the case with proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act. 9. This tribunal's yet another decision in ITA No.1011/Kol/2017 in Sri Hartaj Sewa Singh vs. DCIT,(IT),Circle1(1), Kolkata decided on 27.04.2018 also decides the instant issue in assessee's favour on identical reasoning. We conclude in these facts an....