TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO) carried out a limited scrutiny under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Consequently, a statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] was issued on 11.04.2016, which was followed by another notice dated 27.09.2016. 4. The record also shows, that on 18.01.2017, a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued, to which a questionnaire was appended. 5. The record shows that in response to these notices, the respondent/assessee furnished the details sought by the Assessing Officer (AO). 6. The AO, having satisfied himself with regard to the various queries raised by him, framed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 12.10.2017. 7. The Principal Commissioner of Income T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to make the assessment afresh after taking into the facts mentioned above and after allowing opportunity to the assessee of being heard..." 11. Being aggrieved, the respondent/assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. 12. The Tribunal, via the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 set aside the order passed by the PCIT. 13. Mr Puneet Rai, learned standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that the PCIT exercised his powers, in accordance with the law. 13.1 It is Mr Rai's contention, that the PCIT took into account, the scope and ambit of the power available to him under Section 263 of the Act, and that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 14. Mr Rai ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arties at some length, and also perused the record. 20. According to us, what clearly emerges from the record is as follows: (i) One, limited scrutiny under CASS was conducted. (ii) Two, queries were raised by the AO concerning job work charges. (iii) Three, ultimately, the entire focus of the PCIT was on job work charges, although five heads had been taken up initially for examination. (iv) Four, towards job work charges, the respondent had claimed as expenses, Rs.10.87 cr. 21. Given these broad facts, the Tribunal examined the issue at some length, bearing in mind the material on record. The Tribunal, thereupon, returned inter alia the following findings of fact: (i) Firstly, as noted above, the AO had raised a specific query ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... places, has to get it executed through job workers who are kind of petty sub contactors who get the job work done through various labourers. The job work in the form of labour are done on the different locations and once the project is completed, the workers move out to different places or migrate back their homes and, therefore, it is impossible to get their current addresses so as to enable the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 133(6) of the Act, which actually would have been completely futile exercise. Mere saying that failure to issue notice under Section 133(6) by the Assessing Officer to the labourers, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue de-hors the nature of business activity c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt aspect, the job work was carried out in 2014-15, and therefore, to commence an inquiry after nearly three years would have not led to any fruitful results. 24. In our view, if the facts obtaining in the case are juxtaposed with the admitted fact, that the total value of contract receipts was Rs.141.89 crores, against which the expenses incurred towards job work was only Rs.10.87 crores, the absence of inquiry vis-a-vis job works would not render the assessment order passed by the AO, in these facts, erroneous. 25. For the PCIT to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, twin conditions have to be fulfilled, that is, not only should the order be erroneous, but it should also be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Clea....