TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 143(3) of the income-tax Act dated 27.12.2017 passed by the income-tax Officer, ward 2(4), Kalyan (the learned Assessing Officer) for Assessment Year 2015-16 is erroneous so far as, prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to call for requisite details, carried out verification and modify the order. The assessee is aggrieved and has preferred the following two grounds of appeal: - "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT has erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 and holding that the order passed u/s. 143(3) by Ld. Assessing Officer dated 27.12.2017 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 2. In the facts and ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer did not confront the assessee with above discrepancy but overlooked it . b. It was further observed by him that assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 1,04,70,137/- under section 80IB of the Act and Assessing Officer overlooked the fact whether the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions of that section or not. 5. Therefore, a notice was issued to the assessee fixing date of hearing on 6th February, 2020. On 6th February, 2020, assessee sought adjournment. Next date was given on 28th February, 2020. The learned PCIT mentioned that none attended on that date and therefore decided the issue on merits of the case. He held that the Assessing Officer is directed to verify with respect to the closing stock suppression of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on this issue complete inquiry has been made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed again that there is no addition required to be made. ii. With respect to the second claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, he submitted that the main reason for selection of the scrutiny was large deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. Assessee replied vide letter dated 19.12.2017 and 3 other correspondences dated 21.12.2017 and therefore after considering the above replies the learned Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessee. d. In view of this, he submitted that the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is after making due enquiries and therefore, the order passed cannot said to be erroneous so far as pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his powers to invoke the provisions of Section 263 of the Act on the issues which were not part of the examination before the learned Assessing Officer on the limited scrutiny, irrespective of the fact whether the ld AO examined it or not. We are of the view that if the case of the assessee is selected for limited scrutiny, The Assessing Officer could have inquired only on the issues for which were part of The Limited scrutiny reasons. Ld AO did not have power to go beyond those issues unless the case of the assessee was converted in to complete scrutiny after taking necessary approval. No such approval was shown to us . Therefore ld AO could not have gone beyond those points and made inquiries on other issues which were not the reasons for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 9. However, the issue remains that the learned PCIT while passing the order on 24th March, 2020 has stated that assessee did not comply with date of hearing on 20th February, 2020 and therefore, order was passed without considering the explanation of the assessee. We find that assessee has sent email on 19th March, 2020 explaining the reasons that on account of provision of Section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised for the impugned assessment year. However, this explanation was not considered by the learned PCIT though order u/s 263 of the Act was passed on 24/3/2020. It is apparent that assessee did not attend the hearing on 20/2/2020 but before the order was passed assessee submi....