TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1700
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come as Nil. Along with the revised return of income the assessee filed computation stating that the assessee is a contributory trust and it is revocable. The assessee enjoys pass through status u/s. 61 to 63 of the Act. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee referred to the revised return of income along with computation of income at page 401 to 433 of the paper book. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that in the original return of income, the assessee had offered interest income to tax only because of CBDT Circular No. 13/2014. The assessee revised return of income in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. India Advantage Fund-VII 392 ITR 209. The return of income of assessee for the impugned assessment year was selected for limited scrutiny on the following issues: (i) Contract receipts /Fees mismatch. (ii) Sundry Creditors (iii) Sales turnover mismatch. The Assessing Officer issued notice dated 28/07/2016 u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the same is at page 444 of the paper books. The assessee furnished detailed reply along with documentary evidence to the said notice. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he revised computation was in accordance with the law expounded by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. India Advantage Fund (supra). 2.4 The second argument by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee is that the issues on which the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny mentioned by the PCIT in the show cause notice are different from the issues of limited scrutiny identified under CASS and conveyed to the assessee by the Assessing Officer vide notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 28/07/2016. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked in respect of issues that could not have been dealt with by the Assessing Officer in assessment under limited scrutiny. In support of his submission the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Sonali Hemant Bhavsar Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 742/Mum/2019 decided on 17/05/2019, (ii) R & H Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA No. 1906/Mum/2019 (iii) Gift Land Handicrafts vs. CIT, 19 SOT 5 (Del-Trib) 2.5 On merits, the ld. Authorized Representative for the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ltd. 0.10% All the above beneficiaries have offered interest income received through the assessee in their respective return of income. The assessee had furnished confirmations and copy of return of income of the beneficiaries before the PCIT. The PCIT has found no fault with the same. Once the interest income has been offered to tax by the respective beneficiaries, there is no loss to the Revenue. 2.7 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee finally submitted that since twin conditions for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act i.e. the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are not satisfied in the present case, the PCIT has exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising revisional powers. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee in support of his argument placed reliance on the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 3. Per contra, Shri R.K. Sahu representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has not verifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d assessee has deposited large amount of cash in savings bank account. From comparative analysis of the reasons for selecting the assessment for limited scrutiny as conveyed by the Assessing Officer and as recorded by the PCIT, it is evident that the reasons given by Assessing Officer and the reasons given under notice under section 263 of the Act are not at variance. The Assessing Officer has mentioned the reasons in generic expression and the PCIT has expressed the same in specific terms. In principle the reasons given by PCIT and the Assessing Officer are consistent. Therefore, we do not find force in the argument of ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee that the reasons for limited scrutiny given by the PCIT are totally different from the scope of limited scrutiny conveyed to the assessee. 5. The next argument of the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee is that the assessee has revised the return of income in the light of the decision rendered in the case of PCIT vs. India Advantage Fund-VII (supra). The Assessing Officer accepted the revised return as the claim made in the revised return is supported by the decision of Hon'ble High Court. The assessee is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we do not accept the contention of the Counsel for the Revenue that, answer in law had to come from the Assessing Officer and not the Tribunal. He had argued that even if the Tribunal was right in law, since the Assessing Officer had not come to the said conclusion, the order of the Commissioner should not be disturbed. In our opinion, if the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusions in law and said conclusions are based on materials already on record, it would be futile to reinstate the order of the Commissioner, which in turn, would require the Assessing Officer to carry out the same exercise and axiomatically come to the same conclusion. This line, we are adopting, is within the fold of the requirement of the order of Assessing Officer being 'erroneous^1 . In other words, if it can be demonstrated that the order was not erroneous, the order of revision would, in any case, require an interference. The matter can be looked from slightly different angle. If while examining the order of the A.O. Commissioner notices that, though the A.O. was not examined for claim of the assessee, but the claim itself is legally tenable, would be judicial in exercising and set aside the asse....