TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TA No. 519/Kol/2019. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: "The appellant - Assessee submitted his return of income for the assessment year 2014-2015 on 30-03-2015 electronically declaring total income of Rs.705766-/. The return was Selected for Scrutiny through CASS, but the appellant Assessee had not duly been intimated about the case falling either in "Limited Scrutiny" or "Complete Scrutiny" through notice issued Under Section 143(2) of the IT Act'61 by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the applicant - Assessee raised objection to such invalid notice as it was not issued as per CBDT's Circular. The Assessing Officer rejecting the objection completed the assessment u/s -144 of the IT Act at RS.12,15,034/-. Appeal was preferred against the assessment order before the Ld. CIT (Appeal)-11, Kolkata. In para 9.4 of the order dated 30/11/2018 the Ld. CIT (Appeal) himself has made his comment at first "The notice u/s-143(2) was defective". But on the other hand, justified the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the Appeal. The order of the Ld. CIT (Appeal) itself is Contradictory and bad in law in the eye of Justice. Hence, 2nd ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red on behalf of the assessee. Ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order of both the authorities. 7. We have heard the ld. D/R and perused the records placed before us. On perusal of the grounds filed by the assessee, we note that no ground has been raised on merits of the case. The legality of the assessment proceedings has been challenged based on two contentions, firstly, the assessee was not intimated about the notice issued for selection of scrutiny as to whether the case of the assessee falls under limited scrutiny or complete scrutiny and secondly, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act is defective as observed by ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 8. We find that ld. CIT(A) dealt with this legal issue of correctness of the scrutiny notice and the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act being not defective observing as follows: "9. With the above narrated facts, the objections raised by the Ld. AR are now taken up for adjudication in the following paragraphs wherein, the objections of the td. AR would be presented in Italics and the decision/ reply to it shall be written against it. 9.1 The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and hence it was for a 'Limited Scrutiny': ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of 'Limited Scrutiny'. Therefore, the notice was not defective." 8.1. On going through the above finding of the ld. CIT(A) so far as the contention raised by the assessee that ld. CIT(A) has himself mentioned in the impugned order that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is defective is devoid of any merit because in para 9.4 of the impugned order ld. CIT(A) has given his finding and before giving his finding he has mentioned the issue as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was defective. Nowhere ld. CIT(A) has stated that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was defective. 8.2. As far as the second issue is concerned that in the scrutiny notice it was not mentioned whether the case was fixed for scrutiny for limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny. As rightly observed by the ld. CIT(A) that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has clarified that the case can be fixed for either a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny and in case it is for complete scrutiny then no written approval is required by the ld. AO from the ld. PCIT. From going through the assessment order containing 17 pages, we find that the ld. AO has specifically mentioned that the case of the assessee has been selected for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 120(2) or any other Provision of This Act and The Joint Commissioner who is directed Under Section 120(4)(b) of The IT Act'61 to exercise or perform all or any of the power and functions' Conferred or assigned to an Assessing Officer under The IT Act'61. In this case JCIT Circle-39, Midnapore, who was not directed u/s -120(4)(b) of The IT Act'61 to exercise or Perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred or assign to Assessing Officer Under the IT Act'61, issued the demand notice u/s 156 of the IT Act for Rs.10000/imposed u/s - 272A(1)(C) of the IT Act'61 for the Assessment year 2014-2015. Accordingly the demand notice under section 156 as well as penalty order is invalid under the IT Act and rules and deserves to be quashed. But the CIT (Appeal) has erred in justifying the demand notice which was not issued by the Assessing Officer ITO-39(3). Hence, 2nd appeal is preferred before the ITAT, Kolkata against the order of the CIT (Appeal)-11, Kolkata dated 05-11-2018. For soliciting justice." 10. Through this appeal, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(C) of the Act. This penalty is leviable in case the assessee fa....