TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1. Ld. Pr. CIT erred in invoking the provisions of Sec. 263 and in setting aside the assessment order for fresh enquiry. Order passed u/s. 263 is unsustainable and is passed without properly appreciating the facts and evidences on record. The assessment order is neither erroneous not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 2. Ld. Pr. CIT erred in not appreciating that the case was originally selected for "limited scrutiny" and the issues raised in proceedings u/s. 263 were not covered by the scope of "limited scrutiny" and consequently, the assessment order could not have been branded as erroneous & prejudicial on account of these issues. Order u/s. 263 pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fairness be condoned. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee. 4. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the reasons leading to the effective delay of 45 days involved in filing of the present appeal, we are of the considered view that as the same had occasioned on account of bonafide reasons which by no means could be attributed to any intentional lapse on the part of the assessee, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e. sustainability of the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act dated 18.03.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....admissible". Considering the fact that the case of the assessee was selected for "Limited scrutiny assessment", we concur with the claim of the Ld. AR that as per CBDT Instruction No.20/2015 dated 29.12.2015, the scrutinizing of the assessee's case was to be confined only to such specific reasons/issues, for which, the case had been picked up for scrutiny. Also, as provided in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No.20/2015 (supra), in case the A.O in the course of the limited scrutiny assessment proceedings felt that apart from the CASS information there was potential escapement of income of more than Rs. 10 lac, then the same could be taken for complete scrutiny with the approval of the administrative Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had sought to deal with issues which the A.O was divested of his jurisdiction while framing the assessment pursuant to selection of the case of the assessee for limited scrutiny. 11. As observed by us hereinabove, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for verifying as to whether or not deduction claimed on account of depreciation was admissible. Ostensibly, the assessee had in his return of income disclosed his income from the business of running a stone crusher as per his regularly maintained books of accounts at Rs. 2,97,965/-, Page 10-12 of APB. On a perusal of the Trading & Profit & Loss account of the assessee, it transpires that the aforesaid profit disclosed by the assessee on his total turnover/gross receipts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on a presumptive basis at Rs. 1,80,000/- u/s. 44AE of the Act, then the net income from plying of said vehicles of i.e. Rs. 6,75,503/- [receipts : Rs. 7,20,240/- (-) depreciation on truck: Rs. 12,224/- (-) depreciation on tractor :Rs. 32,513/- (-) indirect expenses (allocated on a pro-rata basis) : Rs. 1,34,908/-] would be required to be excluded from the net returned profit of the assessee. Resultantly, though the determination of the deemed income of the assessee on a presumptive basis u/s. 44AE with respect to the aforesaid vehicles would lead to an addition of Rs. 1,80,000/- (supra), but at the same time the aforesaid income of Rs. 5,40,594/-(supra) would be required to be excluded from the returned income of the assessee. 13. Consider....