TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner has challenged the order dated 3rd January, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat (for short 'the Tribunal') rejecting the Misc. Application No. 56/SRT/2023 arising out of the ITA No.180/SRT/2022 for Assessment Year 2017-18 passed under Section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 3.1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed return of income on 04.11.2017 for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 16,95,700/-. 3.2. The limited scrutiny was initiated by the Assessing Officer through CASS for verification of the cash deposits made by the respondent-assessee during the year under consideration. Accordingly, Notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer during assessment, thoroughly examined the issue on limited scrutiny by issuing show cause notice dated 07/11/2019 wherein the assessee was asked to furnish bank book, bank account and reconciliation of statement along with other various details. The assessee in response to such show cause notices, filed its reply on ITBA portal on 12/12/2019. The assessee furnished complete details of bank accounts held by the assessee, copy of bank statement and reconciliation thereof and substantiated the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer also required certain other details which were also furnished before him. The assessee in response to another notice, filed reply dated 09/08/2019 wherein the assessee specifically explained that during the yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer examined the cash purchases and sales and come to a conclusion that the purchases and sales were inflated and drew an adverse inference and the ld. Pr. CIT of the view that the addition should have been only on purchase and sales proved by the assessee and not by ad hoc basis. The law is well settled that power of Section 263 cannot be exercised to substitute the view of ld. Pr. CIT with a view of Assessing Officer when the view taken by Assessing Officer was of possible view as has been held in Ms. Vimala Devi A. Kanunga Vs PCIT ITA No. 308/Bang/2022 order dated 30/08/2022. 12. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipal Commissioner to pass revisionary order under section 263 on other aspects and remit matter to Assessing Officer for, fresh assessment." We further find that similar view was taken by Coordinate bench of Tribunal in series of decisions as has been relied by Id AR for the assessee. 14. The Supreme Court in celebrated/ leading case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 832 (SC), held that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo-motu is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (1) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of the assessee, this Bench on considering the rival submission of both the parties held that the case was selected for "limited scrutiny" which was examined thoroughly by assessing officer and there was no other issue in the selection of enquiry. Thus, the order passed by the Ld. PCIT by invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act was beyond the reason of selection for "limited scrutiny. Thus, in our considered view and there is no mistake which can be classified as "mistake apparent for recalling order dated 15.12.2022. It is ordered accordingly." 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Hirak Shah for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the application for rectification as the petitioner has pointed out the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the rectification application as the Tribunal has already considered the same. 6. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no mistake apparent on record from the order passed by the Tribunal in the Appeal so as to entertain the Misc. Application under Section 254 (2) of the Act which reads as under: "Section 254 (2): The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within [six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed], with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the [Assessing Officer]: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enha....