TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 970
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 30.12.2019 provides that the return was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue "cash deposit during the demonetization" and so the additions made in the assessment order is without jurisdiction". 3. This ground was raised on the strength of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Limited -vs.- CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC). In this judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded that if any jurisdictional issue is being raised for the first time, which is going to affect taxability of an assessee, then such an issue is allowed to be agitated by the appellant. A perusal of the application of the assessee and the above additional ground would indicate that it does not call for discovery of any new facts. It is purely a legal issue. Therefore, we allow this application of the assessee and entertain this additional ground for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 07.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 47,14,580/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued a notice under section 143(2) and thereafter under section 142(1). The ld. Assessing Officer has passed the impugned ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 22.10.2024 and the same are reproduced as under: "That the Ld.AO erred in issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2018 without complying to the CBDT Instruction F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23-06-2017 and so the notice issued u/s 143(2) is not valid as per law". "That the assessment order u/s 143(3) passed 30.12.2019 provides that the return was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue "cash deposit during the demonetization" and so the additions made in the assessment order is without jurisdiction":. Submission on behalf of the Assessee: 1.A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.09.2018 with the heading as under: "Notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection)" The aforesaid notice is not valid as per law. In this regards it is submitted that revised format of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was provided by the CBDT vide F.NO.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. The said circular is enclosed at page 4-8 of paper book. On perusal of said Circular, it shall be evident that the Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was to be issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law. In support reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd reported in [2024] 463ITR 89 (Calcutta)]!1-10-2023], brief facts and decision is as under:[refer page 19-22 of the paper book]. Brief Facts of the case The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny covering four items namely receipt of large values foreign remittance, mismatch in amount paid to related persons under section 40A(2)(b), unsecured loans from persons who have not filed their return of income and loss from currency fluctuations. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) on assessee and thereafter, passed assessment under section 143(3) wherein he rejected set-off and carry forward of loss and made additions in income of assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the issue which was decided by the Assessing Officer was not part of the limited scrutiny for which the assessment was directed to be scrutinised, thus, Tribunal taking note of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demonetization period along with documentary evidence. ................ ................ In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the cases, I am inclined to give further relief of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the cash deposits of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- made on 05.11.2016 and 08.11.2016 before demonetization period, since it was beyond the scope of the notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 21.09.2018 for which the assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the deposits made during demonetization period and uphold the remaining addition of Rs. 3,30,000/- (8,30,000 - 5,00,000) as the assessee failed to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions during demonetization period, by filing proper evidences before me. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed." In view of the above, the assessment order passed by the Ld.AO is bad in law and is liable to be quashed". 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the strength of his written note drew our attention towards first page of the assessment order. He submitted that a perusal of the first paragraph would indica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
................. Dated:................ To Sir/Madam This is for your kind information that the return of income for Assessment Year filed vide ack. No..............on........... has been selected for Scrutiny. Following issue(s) have been identified for examination: 2. In view of the above, I would like to give you an opportunity to produce any evidence/information which you feel is necessary in support of the said return of income on or before.......... 3. The abovementioned evidence/information is to be furnished online electronically in 'E-Proceeding' facility through your account in e-Filing website of Income-tax Department. Further proceedings shall also be conducted electronically (* *). A brief note on salient features of 'E-Proceeding' is enclosed. 4. In case you do not wish to produce any evidence/information, as mentioned in para 2, you are requested to intimate the same electronically on or before................. 5. Specific questionnaires/requisition of information or documents would be sent subsequently, if required. 6. Para(s) (2) to (4) are applicable if you have an account in e-Filing we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income for Assessment Year filed vide ack. No...... on...... has been selected for Scrutiny on the basis of parameter at Para 1( ) of Manual Compulsory Guidelines of CBDT issued vide Instruction No.....dated ...... 2.In view of the above, I would like to give you an opportunity to produce any evidence/information which you feel is necessary in support of the said return of income on or before.............. 3.The abovementioned evidence/information is to be furnished online electronically in 'E- Proceeding' facility through your account in e-Filing website of Income-tax Department. Further proceedings shall also be conducted electronically (*). A brief note on salient features of 'E- Proceeding' is enclosed. 4.In case you do not wish to produce any evidence/information, as mentioned in para 2, you are requested to intimate the same electronically on or before................. 5.Specific questionnaires/requisition of information or documents would be sent subsequently, if required. 6.Para(s) (2) to (4) are applicable if you have an account in e-Filing website of Income-tax Department. Till such an account is created by you, assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Cycle 2015'. In these cases, it was stated that the general scope of enquiry in scrutiny proceedings should be restricted to the relevant parameters which formed the basis for selecting the case for scrutiny. However, in revenue potential cases, it was further provided that 'Complete Scrutiny' could be conducted, if there was potential escapement of income above a prescribed monetary limit, subject to the approval of administrative Pr. CIT/CIT/Pr. DIT/DIT. 2.In order to ensure that maximum objectivity is maintained in converting a case falling under 'Limited Scrutiny* into a 'Complete Scrutiny' case, the matter has been further examined and in partial modification to Para 3(d) of the earlier order dated 29.12.2015, Board hereby lays down that while proposing to take up 'Complete Scrutiny7 in a case which was originally earmarked for 'Limited Scrutiny7, the Assessing Officer ('AO') shall be required to form a reasonable view that there is possibility of under assessment of income if the case is not examined under 'Complete Scrutiny'. In this regard, the monetary limits and requirement of administrative approval from Pr. CIT/CIT/Pr. D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, assessment order is not sustainable. For buttressing his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Limited reported in 155 taxman.com 580, 296 ITR 205, [2024] 463 ITR 89. 10. On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied upon the order of ld. Assessing Officer and submitted that perusal of page no. 9 of the paper book, wherein copy of the notice under section 143(2) has been placed, would reveal that no expression exhibiting the limited scrutiny is being used by the ld. Assessing Officer. The notice would indicate that the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. 11. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. At the cost of repetition, we deem it necessary to take note of the format propounded by the CBDT for the use of ld. Assessing Officer while issuing notice under section 143(2) in a limited scrutiny case. Paragraphs 1 & 2 of this format are being emphasized by us, which read as under:- Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act. ....