TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act issued by the DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred as 'the AO') and the details as requisitioned were not furnished. The AO had given a finding in the assessment order that payment of Rs. 11,51,445/- to the persons specified under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not reasonable. Further, the assessee had shown purchase of Rs. 4,87,97,753/- in the Profit & Loss Account whereas as per ITS details, the invoice value of imports was Rs. 6,99,02,253/-. The difference of Rs. 2,11,04,500/- in the purchases was not explained by the assessee which was treated as suppressed purchase. Similarly, export duty draw back shown in the return was Rs. 99,011/- whereas the duty draw back on exports as available in the ITS data was Rs. 1,50,549/- and the difference of Rs. 51,538/- was not reconciled. The Assessing Officer had also given a finding that the assessee had taken various loans which were mostly diverted towards loans and advances, the purpose of which was not explained. In the absence of any compliance by the assessee as well as for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve facts are supported by the rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act passed by the DCIT Circle 3(1)(2) Ahmedabad. Hence the impugned assessment is required to be quashed as void-ab-initio and bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts for not deleting the addition of Rs. 2,50,0,000/- which has been made by the DCIT Circle 3(1)2) Ahmedabad without identifying the nature of addition and disallowance. In view of the facts, explanations and evidences filed during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings, the addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- made by the AO in the assessment order is wholly unjustified and bad in law and thus requires to be deleted. In view of the above, the impugned assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and addition made therein both requires to be quashed being without jurisdiction. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the above grounds and to submit additional grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal. 5. Shri Mehul Patel, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in setting aside the assessment to the file of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e jurisdiction of DCIT, Circle 3(1)(2) over the case of the assessee goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, the ground no-2 pertaining to jurisdiction, is required to be adjudicated first. It is contended that the DCIT did not have correct and proper jurisdiction to pass the impugned assessment order as the notice dated 04.07.2017 was issued by the ITO, Ward 3(1)(3), Ahmedabad under Section 142(1) r.w.s 129 of the Act. The assessee has brought on record copy of the notices in the paper book filed. It is found that identical computer generated notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ITO, Ward - 3(1)(3), Ahmedabad as well as by the ACIT, Circle - 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad on 26.07.2016. Merely because the notices were issued both by the ITO as well as by the ACIT, it can't be concluded that the ACIT was having no jurisdiction over the case. The territorial jurisdiction of the ITO and the ACIT/DCIT working in the same Range is common. Within the common jurisdiction, the cases are assigned to the ITO and to the ACIT/DCIT on the basis of the monetary limit. The CBDT vide INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], DATED 31- 1-2011 had fixed pecuniary limit for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion over the case can't be accepted. The jurisdiction over the case for the current year was with the ACIT/DCIT and not with the ITO. The jurisdiction was also rightly assumed by the ACIT/DCIT by issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 26.07.2016. Therefore, the assessment order as passed by the DCIT, Circle - 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad in this case cannot be held as without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the ground no.-2 raised by the assessee in respect of jurisdiction over the case is dismissed. 8. The ground nos.-3 and 4 pertain to conversion of limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny by the AO and making ad hoc addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- without identifying the nature of addition. It is true that the case was selected for limited scrutiny on specific issues as already mentioned earlier. The Assessing Officer had also discussed those issues in the assessment order and pointed out specific discrepancy in respect of import turnover mismatch and duty draw back mismatch. However, since no compliance was made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, he had rejected the books of account and made ad hoc addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- in respect of the mismatch on the issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee, under the circumstances at this stage, is not left with any grievance relating to the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the ground no-3 and 4 as raised by the assessee in this regard are dismissed. 9. The ground No.-1 taken by the assessee is against setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment. The contention of the assessee is that, as the remand report of the AO was already obtained on the additional evidences filed in the course of appeal proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) should have decided the grounds taken by the assessee on merits rather than setting aside to the file of the AO for fresh assessment. A copy of the remand report as well as rejoinder of the assessee thereon has been brought on record in the paper book. In the remand report the AO had commented that the assessee had failed to reconcile the difference in import turnover mismatch as well as in respect of duty draw back receipt. In the rejoinder dated 12.07.2023 to the remand report of the AO, the assessee had contended that the AO did not carry out any enquiries before submitting his remand report. It was explained that the mismatch of impor....