TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Therefore, addition made for Rs. 22,23,000 under section 56 of the act is not tenable. 2. That on the Facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned A.O. has erred in making addition without quantifying the amount of proposed addition and without proposing the variations is in violation of assessment discipline. 3. Without prejudice this ground is taken that on the Facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned A.O. has erred in taking the registrar value of F.M.V at 66,13,000 instead of correct amount of Rs. 64,13,000 as per registry documents. 4. Without prejudice this ground is taken that on the Facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned A.O. has erred in not giving an opportunity to the appellant to justify consideration value of Rs. 44,00,000 against stamp duty value of Rs. 64,13,000 due to the property situated at Agroha Society, Raipur. 5. That On the Facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in sending the notices on ITBA and five appeal hearing notices ,before deciding the appeal, were sent on the wrong mail Id in spite of updating the IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellate proceedings and failed to respond to various Notices issued by this office. He did not even respond to the enablement communication notice dated 27.01.2021, 31.03.2021, 02.09.2022, 14.09.2022, 08.05.2023, 31.05.2023 and 07.06.2023 issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. It is important to delve into the judicial pronouncements on this issue which are elaborated below: 5.2.1 In the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya reported at 118 ITR 461, it was held that ".........appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it." 5.2.2 The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of M/s. Chemipol v/s. Union of India, Law Ministry, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai and The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai (Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009) clearly states, that every court judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a matter between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in default. 5.2.3 For the sake of reference, the relevant extract of the judicial pronouncement rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai quoting decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould not be given many opportunities just because that quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference; otherwise it would amount to giving premium to the assessee for his negligence. 6. The facts of the case as noted above are that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities as elaborated supra. No details, documents or submissions have been provided to come to any conclusion other than those arrived at by the assessing officer in the assessment order. The Notices have been duly served upon the assessee. Regrettably no response whatsoever was forthcoming on the appointed date. Thus, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate as to why the addition made by the A.O. should not be sustained. 7. In view of the above, the undersigned is left with no option but to decide the case on the basis of material available on record. Bare perusal of the facts shows that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities as elaborated supra. The appellant has jeopardized his case by not responding despite several opportunities that were provided. Sufficie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter in appeal. 6. Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee at the threshold of hearing assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing assessment vide his order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 17.12.2018. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that though the case of the assessee was selected for "limited scrutiny", but the A.O, thereafter, had traversed beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and made an addition with respect to an issue which had never formed the basis for selection of the case for such limited scrutiny assessment. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR had drawn my attention to the notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 20.09.2017, wherein reasons forming the basis for selection of the assessee's case for "limited scrutiny" (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) were stated. The Ld. AR submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the limited purpose as mentioned in the aforesaid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, viz. whether the cash deposits were made from disclosed sources. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had during the subject ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19 dated 28.02.2019 (iv) Rajnikanth S Bhalavat Vs. ACIT, ITA No.495/Ahd/2019 dated 23.12.2022 (v) Sukhdham Infrastructure LLP Vs. ITO, ITA No.2611/Kol/2019 dated 23.02.2023 9. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') had relied on the report filed by the ITO-4(1), Raipur dated 25.06.2024 which reads as under: It was submitted by the Ld. DR that the case of the assessee as per the A.O's report was selected for two fold reasons, viz. (i) there were large cash deposits in the assessee's bank account; and (ii) assessee has transferred one and more properties during the year. The Ld. DR submitted that based on the AO's report, it was incorrect on the part of the assessee to state that the case was selected for "limited scrutiny" only for verifying large cash deposits in his bank account. 10. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and material available on record as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR for the assessee to drive home his contentions. 11. Ostensibly, the issue invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made an independent/stray addition u/s. 56(2)(vi)(b) of the Act while framing the assessment. I find that the aforesaid issue had been deliberated at length by the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Su-raj Diamond Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-11, Mumbai, ITA No.3098/Mum/2019 dated 27.11.2019 (authored by me). The Tribunal in its order had after referring to the Instruction No.20/2015 dated 29.12.2015, observed that the A.O in a case of "limited scrutiny" assessment only after obtaining approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax can traverse beyond the reasons for which the case was selected for "limited scrutiny" after converting the same into complete scrutiny. It was observed by the Tribunal that in all other cases, the A.O would be divested of his jurisdiction from traversing on issues which did not fall within the limited purpose for which the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Tribunal are culled out as under: "2. Briefly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, import & export of diamonds, jewellery, gold & silver had e-filed its re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee. It was observed by the Pr. CIT, that as the case of the assessee was selected for "Limited scrutiny" under CASS for two reasons viz. (i). Large other expenses claimed in the P&L A/c.; and (ii). Low income in comparison to High Loans/advance/Investment in shares, therefore, the A.O had no occasion to carry out a comprehensive scrutiny of the issues relating to "closing stock" in the course of the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT holding a view that the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 08.12.2016 was erroneous, insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, therefore, "set aside" his order, with a direction to examine the issue relating to "closing stock" after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263, dated 15.02.2019, has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short "A.R") for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted, that as the A.O after due application of mind had framed the assessment, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdict....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted with the A.O. In sum and substance, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that the Pr. CIT had gravely erred in law in holding the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 08.12.2016 as erroneous, for the reason, that the latter had erred in not traversing beyond the limited scope of his jurisdiction and adjudicating those issues which fell beyond the realm of the "limited reasons" for which its case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS. 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short "D.R") objected to the contentions advanced by the counsel for the assessee. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that the Pr. CIT had rightly exercised his jurisdiction under Sec. 263 and directed the A.O to adjudicate the issue as regards valuation of "closing stock" after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In order to drive home his claim that the Pr. CIT had not exceeded his jurisdiction, the ld. D.R had drawn support from "Explanation 2" of Sec. 263 of the Act. In the backdrop of his bereft and devoid of any force, therefore, the same did not merit acceptance and was liable to be dismissed. 6. We have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....struction is applicable only in respect of the cases selected for scrutiny through CASS-2014. ii. Whether the said Instruction is applicable to all cases selected under CASS: The said Instruction is applicable where the case is selected for scrutiny under CASS only on the parameters) of AIR/CIB/26AS data. If a case has been selected under CASS for any other reason(s)/parameter(s) besides the AIR/CIB/26AS data, then the said instruction would not apply. iii. Scope of Enquiry: Specific issue based enquiry is to be conducted only in those scrutiny cases which have been selected on the parameter(s) of AIR/CIB/26AS data. In such cases, the Assessing Officer, shall also confine the Questionnaire only to the specific issues pertaining to AIR/CIB/26AS data. Wider scrutiny in these cases can only be conducted as per the guidelines and procedures stated in Instruction No 7/2014 iv Reason for selection: In cases under scrutiny for verification of AIR/CIB/26AS data, the Assessing Officer has to intimate the reason for selection of case for scrutiny to the assessee concerned. 3. As far as the returns selected for scrutiny through CASS-2015 are concerned, two type of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of the same. Before passing the final order against the proposed additions/disallowances, due consideration shall be given to the submissions made by the assessee in response to the show- cause notice. 5. The contents of this Instruction should be immediately brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance. 6. Hindi version to follow (F.No 225/269/2015-ITA.II) (Ankita Pandey) Under Secretary to the Government of India" Now, the case of the assessee before us was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, for the reasons, that there were viz. (i). Large other expenses claimed in the P&L A/c.; and (ii). Low income in comparison to High Loans/advance /Investment in shares.. Accordingly, it can safely be concluded that the assessment framed by the A.O fell within the realm of the limited purpose for which its case was selected for scrutiny assessment viz. viz. (i). Large other expenses claimed in the P&L A/c.; and (ii). Low income in comparison to High Loans/advance /Investment in shares. 7. As observed by us hereinabove, as per the CBDT instruction No. 20/2015, dated 29.12.2015, in a case which had been selected for s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aimed in the P&L A/c.; and (ii). Low income in comparison to High Loans/advance /Investment in shares, therefore, no infirmity could be attributed to the assessment framed by the A.O on the ground that he had failed to deal with other issues which though did not fall within the realm of the limited reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. In other words, the Pr. CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be permitted to traverse beyond the jurisdiction that was vested with the A.O while framing the assessment. In sum and substance, revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised for broadening the scope of jurisdiction that was vested with the A.O while framing the assessment. As a matter of fact, what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as the A.O had aptly confined himself to the issues for which the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, therefore, no infirmity can be attributed to his order, for the reason, that he had failed to dwell upon certain other issues which did not form part of the reasons for which the case was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....·à¥‡à¤¤à¥à¤°-1, रायपà¥à¤° (छ.ग.) Subject:- Submission of report in respect of grounds of appeal raised in ITA No. 171/ RPR/2024 in the case of JYOTI CHATURVEDI, PAN-AFOPC9532L for A.Y. 2016-17 - Reg. Ref.: Your letter dated 26.06.2024 bearing F. No. JCIT-ITAT/RPR/REQ/2024-25 Kindly refer to the above. In this regard, it is submitted that the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reason mentioned below:- "Large cash deposits in savings bank account and assessee has also transferred one or more property(ies) during the year (AIR 001 and CIB)" The copy of the reason has been attached herewith at Annexure-A for ready reference. 3. It is further submitted that as per AIR transactions, the assessee has purchased immovable property valued at Rs. 64,13,000/- on 12/01/2016 and also sold immovable property valued at Rs. 60,00,000/- on 07/12/2015. The copy of AIR transaction pertaining to F.Y. 2015-16 in respect of the assessee has been attached herewith at Annexure-B for ready reference. 4. On perusal of the facts noted above at Para '2' and '3', it can be clearly inferred tha....