2021 (10) TMI 1306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act'] by exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and directed the AO to re-assess the income of the assessee. 2. The brief facts emanating from the record and pleadings of the parties are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring income of Rs. 1,13,13,134/- The case was selected for limited scrutiny for examining the sales turnover mismatch and expenditure of personal nature. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In response thereof the authorized representative (AR) of the assessee appeared before the AO and furnished the documents / details called for. On the basis of the details filed and the explanation given on behalf of the assessee, the AO acce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in respect of any of the issues raised. 3. The learned Pr. CIT acted without jurisdiction in passing an order in respect of Interest free advances to related parties and verification of interest on tax which was outside the limited scope for selection of case for scrutiny. 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the order of the learned Pr. CIT may be quashed and the appeal allowed. The appellant craves leave to add to, or, amend/ alter/ withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal. All the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 5. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the legal ground raised by the assessee in this case is covered in favour of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Gift Land Handicrafts Vs CIT (2008) 108 TTJ 312(ITAT-Delhi) and in the case of Ajit Gupta VS ITO (2007) 108 TTJ 301(Del.) wherein the said Benches have held that the Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 on the issues other than those decided in the limited scrutiny assessment. The ld. counsel accordingly submitted that the legal ground raised by the assessee may be allowed and the order passed by the ld. PCIT may be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supporting the order passed by the ld. PCIT submitted that since the AO had not examined the issues raised in the impugned order, the ld. PCIT has rightly invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and directed ....