TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessing officer issued notice u/s 143(2) dated 15-11-2021 calling for the Name, Address and PAN of the Donee, amount of donation, mode of payment with supporting evidence, copy of u/s 80G Certificate issued by Donee and copy of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) and computation of deduction claim u/s. 80G(5) of the Act. 3. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 29-11-2021 submitted that Rs. 65,00,000/- donated to Shree Anandjibhai Motibhai Patel Charitable Trust, Wadhwan through banking channel and also furnished other details as required by the assessing officer. On due verification of the details, the assessing officer accepted the Returned Income and passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 20-09-2022. Perusal of the above assessment order, Ld. PCIT found that the assessee had shown income from salary of Rs. 4.05 crores from M/s Makson Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. However the employer had shown payment of remuneration of Rs. 3.6 crores only. Thus the balance amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- not explained by the assessee, which is liable to be taxed at special rate instead of normal rate. Further the Assessing Officer has failed to verify disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D on the to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been passed by the AO without making properly enquiries/verification in respect of (1) difference is respect of director remuneration of Rs. 45,00,000/- being remuneration as per books of account of appellant Rs. 4,05,00,000/- AMD remuneration as per book of account of company from whom remuneration received AMD (1) applicability AMD disallowance u/s 144 r.w.r. 8D for exempt income earned by the appellant during the year. The order passed by PCIT requires to be quashed AMD may kindly be quashed 7. Ld. Counsel Mr. Mehul Ranpura appearing for the assessee submitted that the revision order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of law. Since the case of the assessee was selected for "limited scrutiny" to verify the claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. Pursuant to the same, the assessing officer issued notice u/s 143(2) calling for various details which were furnished by the assessee vide its reply dated 15-11-2021 enclosing copy of the donation made by the assessee with relevant details. Since the assessment is being a "limited scrutiny", the assessing officer has no power to travel beyond the issues as mentioned in the "limited scrutiny" for assessment. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing officer is of the opinion to make further disallowances other than the "limited scrutiny" he ought to have obtained permission from Ld. CIT making complete scrutiny assessment which is not been done in this case. The Ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) relating to the limited scrutiny assessment against which the assessee furnished all necessary details before the assessing officer. Thus Ld. PCIT invoking Section 263 proceedings beyond the "limited scrutiny" assessment is not proper. 10. Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of PCIT vs. M/s. Green Park held that revision proceedings cannot be initiated other than the limited scrutiny assessment by observing as follows: 12. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as well the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT under Section 263 of the Act which is impugned before us. We find that the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. We further find that for limited, scrutiny, the Assessing Officer issued necessary questionnaire about, secking details of bank accounts and other related information and evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment order is not meet out in the present case, therefore, the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed." 10.1. On filing Miscellaneous Application against the Tribunal order, Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dismissed the Revenue Miscellaneous Application by observing as follows: "3. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the records carefully. We find that while adjudicating the appeal 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." 10.2. On Revenue's further appeal, Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s. Green Park (cited supra) held that the Tr....