TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 04.04.2016 declaring an income of Rs. 2,96,340/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny u/s. 143(2) of the Act to verify his claim for deduction of depreciation. 3. Original assessment was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.11.2017 and the returned income of the assessee was accepted as such. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act dated 18.03.2021 set-aside the original assessment framed on to verify two issues, viz. (i) genuineness of the business; and (ii) source of cash deposits and credits entries. 4. The A.O giving effect to the order u/s. 263 dated 18.03.2021 framed the de-novo assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 26.03.2022. The Pr. CIT after culmination of the set-aside assessment called upon the assessee to put forth an explanation as to why the de-novo assessment order be not revised by him u/s. 263 of the Act as the claim for depreciation of Rs. 8,00,491/- was wrongly allowed by the A.O. As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cles needs verification". That having been instructed by the Pr. CIT, Raipur the AO has reopened the case u/s 147 and passed an order on 26.03.2022 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. In the course of assessment proceeding the assessee has filed his reply with relevant supporting. The AO has verified the issue with the documents properly, and being satisfied with the claim of depreciation made by the assessee in his ITR, had not said anything adverse on his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 26.03.2022. However, the Id. AO has raised an additional issue of cash deposits in bank accounts, which has never been raised either under limited scrutiny selected under CASS of by the Hon'ble PCILT-1 Raipur in his order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and has made addition of Rs. 16,96,700/- u/s 69A of the Act, for cash deposits of Bank of India. Worthwhile to mention here that aggrieved with the above said Assessment Order dt. 26.03.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which is still pending before the Hon'ble CIT(A) for their adjudication. However, this appeal is to be withdrawn because it has become infructuous after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d income u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act and has claimed expenses to the tune of Rs. 14,92,330/-. It is a well settled fact that, when income is declared u/s 44AD of the Act under presumptive basis, the provisions of deduction u/s 28 to 43 as provided under income-tax Act is deemed to have been allowed and income computed at the presumptive rate of 6% or 8% or more as the case may be no expenses can be claimed. Further, regarding the contention of the assessee that, ld. ITAT, Raipur in its order in ITA No. 136/RPR/2022 dated 10.07.2023 for the Asstt. Year 2015-16 has set-aside the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, dated 18.03.2021 and restored the order of the AO u/s 143(3) dated 30.11.2017, it will not be out of place to mention here that the said order of the Id. ITAT has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh and the matter is sub-judice. However, in view of the issues involved in this case and submission of the assessee, the undersigned is of the view that, the matter needs re-verification and therefore, the matter is being set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of facts and fresh adjudication. 6. Thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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/Commissioner of Income Tax. Ostensibly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the case of the present assessee was at no stage converted into complete scrutiny. 9. Considering the aforesaid factual position, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that now when the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, therefore, the scope of jurisdiction of the A.O was confined to the specific issue for verification of which the same was picked up for scrutiny assessment. Carrying our aforesaid observation further, we are of the considered view that now when the scope of jurisdiction of the A.O while framing limited scrutiny was confined to the reasons which had formed the basis for selecting the case of the assessee for scrutiny assessment, then, the Pr. CIT in the garb of revisional proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act could not have traversed beyond the issues for wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Apart from that, we are of the considered view that as the aforesaid vehicles i.e. truck and tractor were being used by the assessee in his business of running a stone crusher, therefore, there was no justification for the Pr. CIT to have observed that the income from plying of said vehicles was to be separately determined u/s. 44AE of the Act. Alternatively, we find that even if the income of the aforesaid vehicles i.e. truck and tractor was to be determined 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 assesse....