TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....short "the Act"]. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.] 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the Ld. PCIT's detailed discussion in issue has termed the Assessing Officer's regular assessment dated 28.12.2018, disallowing/adding the alleged non-genuine creditors, cessation of liability and depreciation of Rs. 2,42,399/- Rs. 9,98,988 and Rs. 1,82,178/-, respectively, as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue for the reason that the same had been completed without making any enquiry(s) qua the twin issues of partners remuneration of Rs.6 lakhs to Smt. Nalini Kapse and section 80IB (11A) deduction. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands and find no merit in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed income vide assessment order dated 11.09.2017 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and issued show cause notice observing that the assessee had made payment of Rs. 1,16,71,785/- to the contractor whereas income tax at source was deducted only on payment of Rs. 39,49,265/-. Based on this observation Ld. Pr. CIT held that the Ld. AO did not make any enquiry about the fact that whether the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the balance amount of payments and nothing is on record to show that Ld. AO had made verification as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act. Accordingly the assessment order dated 11.09.2017 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act was held as erroneou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onali Bhavsar vs. PCIT ITANo. 742/Mum/2019 (I.T.A.T., Mumbai) iii. Rakesh Kumar vs. CIT ITANo. 6187/Del/2015 (I.T.A.T., Delhi) iv. Baby Memorial Hospital vs. ACIT ITANo. 420/Coch/2019 (I.T.A.T., Cochin) 6. Per contra ld. DR supported the order of Ld. Pr. CIT. 7. We have heard rival contentions, perused the records placed before us. Through this appeal assessee has challenged the revisionary power assumed by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act. In the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act it is stated that Ld. AO has not verified the issue of tax deducted at source on the payments made to contractors in light of the provisions of section 194C of the Act. 8. Now first we need to examine that "whether the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of goods which are not in conformity with the provisions of section 40A (3) of the income tax act. It is apparent from the audit objection filed before us at page number 30 of the paper book that the case of the assessee was selected for the scrutiny to verify only the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. The issue before us is whether assessing officer has made any enquiry with respect to the above purchases. Though, learned assessing officer has obtained the explanation of the assessee with respect to the purchases made by the assessee in cash, whether the learned assessing officer is required to make any such enquiry or not is also an issue. This because of the reason that the learned assessing officer was only required to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n under section 263 of the income tax act holding that the order of the learned assessing officer passed under section 143 (3) of the act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is not correct. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned CIT is unsustainable. 10. In the above referred decision Tribunal has held that when the assessment is taken up for limited scrutiny, Ld. Pr. CIT/CIT cannot hold the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in respect of issue which was not a reason for selection of the case for limited scrutiny. Similar view also taken in the following decision: (i) The Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1013 & 1035/Pun/2014 - order dated 10.10.2017], ....